Functional and prognostic implications of cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking-derived remote myocardial strain analyses in patients following acute myocardial infarction

Torben Lange, Thomas Stiermaier, Sören J Backhaus, Patricia C Boom, Johannes T Kowallick, Suzanne de Waha-Thiele, Joachim Lotz, Shelby Kutty, Boris Bigalke, Matthias Gutberlet, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Steffen Desch, Gerd Hasenfuß, Holger Thiele, Ingo Eitel, Andreas Schuster, Torben Lange, Thomas Stiermaier, Sören J Backhaus, Patricia C Boom, Johannes T Kowallick, Suzanne de Waha-Thiele, Joachim Lotz, Shelby Kutty, Boris Bigalke, Matthias Gutberlet, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Steffen Desch, Gerd Hasenfuß, Holger Thiele, Ingo Eitel, Andreas Schuster

Abstract

Background: Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking (CMR-FT)-derived global strain assessments provide incremental prognostic information in patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Functional analyses of the remote myocardium (RM) are scarce and whether they provide an additional prognostic value in these patients is unknown.

Methods: 1034 patients following acute myocardial infarction were included. CMR imaging and strain analyses as well as infarct size quantification were performed after reperfusion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 12 months after the index event was defined as primary clinical endpoint.

Results: Patients with MACE had significantly lower RM circumferential strain (CS) compared to those without MACE. A cutoff value for RM CS of - 25.8% best identified high-risk patients (p < 0.001 on log-rank testing) and impaired RM CS was a strong predictor of MACE (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.07-1.14, p = 0.003). RM CS provided further risk stratification among patients considered at risk according to established CMR parameters for (1) patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% (p = 0.038 on log-rank testing), (2) patients with reduced global circumferential strain (GCS) > - 18.3% (p = 0.015 on log-rank testing), and (3) patients with large microvascular obstruction ≥ 1.46% (p = 0.002 on log-rank testing).

Conclusion: CMR-FT-derived RM CS is a useful parameter to characterize the response of the remote myocardium and allows improved stratification following AMI beyond commonly used parameters, especially of high-risk patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00712101 and NCT01612312 Defining remote segments (R) in the presence of infarct areas (I) for the analysis of remote circumferential strain (CS). Remote CS was significantly lower in patients who suffered major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and a cutoff value for remote CS of - 25.8% best identified high-risk patients. In addition, impaired remote CS ≥ - 25.8 % (Remote -) and preserved remote CS < - 25.8 % (Remote +) enabled further risk stratification when added to established parameters like left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global circumferential strain (GCS) or microvascular obstruction (MVO).

Keywords: CMR; Feature tracking; Myocardial infarction; Remote strain; Risk prediction.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest statement.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Definition of remote myocardium according to late gadolinium enhancement. Based on the AHA 16-segment model, myocardium was classified as infarcted (I) or remote (R) segments. After delineation of epi- (green) and endocardial borders (red), infarct area was plotted (red area within myocardium) and a bull’s eye displaying affected myocardial tissue (in %) was generated. The adjacent segments next to a RM segment within one layer and the adjacent segments of more basal or apical slices had to be unaffected by infarct area enhancement to define RM myocardium. S septal, L lateral
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flowchart
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Correlation of remote CS with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and infarct size. Correlation of remote CS with left ventricular ejection fraction (left) and infarct size (right). CS global circumferential strain, % LV percent left ventricular mass
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Remote CS and survival after acute myocardial infarction. Incidence of MACE (major adverse cardiac events) according to high and low remote circumferential strain (CS)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Remote circumferential strain (CS) and survival in subgroup analyses. Incidence of MACE (major adverse cardiac events) according to high and low remote circumferential strain (cutoff value − 25.8%) in subgroups of global circumferential strain (GCS), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), infarct size (IS) and microvascular obstruction (MVO) dichotomized to high- and low-risk cohorts using optimal cutoff points

References

    1. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts) Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1635–1701. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092.
    1. Van Kranenburg M, Magro M, Thiele H, et al. Prognostic value of microvascular obstruction and infarct size, as measured by CMR in STEMI patients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:930–939. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.05.010.
    1. Backhaus SJ, Kowallick JT, Stiermaier T, et al. Culprit vessel-related myocardial mechanics and prognostic implications following acute myocardial infarction. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019;109:339–349. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01514-x.
    1. Galea N, Dacquino GM, Ammendola RM, et al. Microvascular obstruction extent predicts major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction and preserved ejection fraction. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:2369–2377. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5895-z.
    1. Schuster A, Morton G, Chiribiri A, et al. Imaging in the management of ischemic cardiomyopathy: special focus on magnetic resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:359–370. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.076.
    1. Stiermaier T, Jobs A, De Waha S, et al. Optimized prognosis assessment in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction using a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging risk score. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:e006774.
    1. Stiermaier T, Lange T, Chiribiri A, et al. Left ventricular myocardial deformation in Takotsubo syndrome: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking study. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:5160–5170. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5475-2.
    1. Buss SJ, Breuninger K, Lehrke S, et al. Assessment of myocardial deformation with cardiac magnetic resonance strain imaging improves risk stratification in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:307–315. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu181.
    1. Schuster A, Kutty S, Padiyath A, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking detects quantitative wall motion during dobutamine stress. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:58. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-13-58.
    1. Eitel I, Stiermaier T, Lange T, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking for optimized prediction of cardiovascular events following myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:1433–1444. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.11.034.
    1. Fieno DS, Kim RJ, Chen EL, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of myocardium at risk: distinction between reversible and irreversible injury throughout infarct healing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1985–1991. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00958-X.
    1. Eitel I, Wohrle J, Suenkel H, et al. Intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus abciximab application during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: cardiac magnetic resonance substudy of the AIDA STEMI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1447–1454. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.048.
    1. Thiele H, De Waha S, Zeymer U, et al. Effect of aspiration thrombectomy on microvascular obstruction in NSTEMI patients: the TATORT-NSTEMI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1117–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.064.
    1. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002;105:539–542. doi: 10.1161/hc0402.102975.
    1. Flett AS, Hasleton J, Cook C, et al. Evaluation of techniques for the quantification of myocardial scar of differing etiology using cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.11.015.
    1. Schuster A, Hor KN, Kowallick JT, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking: concepts and clinical applications. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e004077. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004077.
    1. Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1445–1453. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011163432003.
    1. Wellnhofer E, Olariu A, Klein C, et al. Magnetic resonance low-dose dobutamine test is superior to SCAR quantification for the prediction of functional recovery. Circulation. 2004;109:2172–2174. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000128862.34201.74.
    1. Nagel E, Schuster A. Myocardial viability: dead or alive is not the question! JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:509–512. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.03.005.
    1. Bodi V, Sanchis J, Berenguer A, et al. Wall motion of noninfarcted myocardium. Relationship to regional and global systolic function and to early and late left ventricular dilation. Int J Cardiol. 1999;71:157–165. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5273(99)00146-1.
    1. Bauer A, Klemm M, Rizas KD, et al. Prediction of mortality benefit based on periodic repolarisation dynamics in patients undergoing prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator: a prospective, controlled, multicentre cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394:1344–1351. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31996-8.
    1. O'connor DM, Smith RS, Piras BA, et al. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine protects against left ventricular remodeling by attenuating infarct expansion and preserving remote-zone contractile function and synchrony in a mouse model of reperfused myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e002989.
    1. Eid RA, Zaki MSA, Al-Shraim M, et al. Subacute ghrelin administration inhibits apoptosis and improves ultrastructural abnormalities in remote myocardium post-myocardial infarction. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;101:920–928. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.010.
    1. Simonis G, Dahlem MH, Hohlfeld T, et al. A novel activation process of protein kinase C in the remote, non-ischemic area of an infarcted heart is mediated by angiotensin-AT1 receptors. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2003;35:1349–1358. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2828(03)00250-5.
    1. Schuster A, Backhaus SJ, Stiermaier T, et al. Fast manual long-axis strain assessment provides optimized cardiovascular event prediction following myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20:1262–1270. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jez077.
    1. Erley J, Genovese D, Tapaskar N, et al. Echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance based evaluation of myocardial strain and relationship with late gadolinium enhancement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019;21:46. doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0559-y.
    1. Schuster A, Lange T, Backhaus SJ, et al. Fully automated cardiac assessment for diagnostic and prognostic stratification following myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(18):e016612. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.016612.
    1. Backhaus SJ, Metschies G, Zieschang V, et al. Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding. Magn Reson Med. 2020 doi: 10.1002/mrm.28437.
    1. Morton G, Schuster A, Jogiya R, et al. Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:43. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-14-43.
    1. Gertz RJ, Lange T, Kowallick JT, et al. Inter-vendor reproducibility of left and right ventricular cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0193746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193746.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa