Percent infarct mapping: An <i>R</i><sub>1</sub>‐map‐based CE‐MRI method for determining myocardial viability distribution

Surányi, Pál; Kiss, Pál; Brott, Brigitta C.; Símor, Tamás; Elgavish, Ada; Ruzsics, Balázs; Saab-Ismail, Nada H.; Elgavish, Gabriel A.

doi:10.1002/mrm.20979

Cited by 22 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the help of using paramagnetic relaxation rate enhancement, DR1 (the difference between inverse T1 with and without the presence of contrast agent), a continuous scale is assigned in each infarcted voxel. Based on contrast accumulation of the infarcted volume element of interest, a Percent Infarct Map (PIM) can be created [49,50]. PIM can not only assess the infarct size, or the global parameter called ''infarction fraction'', but also the density (i.e.…”

Section: T1-mapping and R1-based Percent Infarct Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel MRI and CT Approaches for the Characterization of Myocardial Infarct

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate myocardial viability assessment is essential to optimize revascularization and/or medical treatment in patients with myocardial infarct. To date, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the widely accepted clinical standard for visualization, characterization and quantification of myocardial viability. Multidetector computed tomography (CT) is reported by numerous authors as an emerging imaging modality for myocardial viability assessment. This review article summarizes cardiac MRI and CT modalities for myocardial viability assessment.

show abstract

Section: T1-mapping and R1-based Percent Infarct Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel MRI and CT Approaches for the Characterization of Myocardial Infarct

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the SAX image stacks, endoand epicardial contours of the LV muscle were traced manually. All further steps of the analysis were automated to eliminate observer bias for calculating a PI value for each voxel (26).…”

Section: Pim Image Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A voxel in the processed images is considered either completely viable or 100% infarct. The percent infarct map (PIM) method (26) does not suffer from these shortcomings and it assigns a percent infarct (PI) value to each voxel visualizing the patchiness of the infarct.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Head‐to‐head comparison between delayed enhancement and percent infarct mapping for assessment of myocardial infarct size in a canine model

Ruzsics

Surányi

Kiss

et al. 2008

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare a novel method, percent-infarctmapping (PIM), with conventional delayed enhancement (DE) of contrast for accurate myocardial viability assessment. Contrary to signal intensity (SI), the longitudinal relaxation-rate enhancement (⌬R1) is an intrinsic parameter linearly proportional to the concentration of contrast agent (CA). Determining ⌬R1 voxel-by-voxel, after administering an infarct-avid CA, allows determination of pervoxel percentage of infarcted tissue. The feasibility of generating PIM is demonstrated in canine reperfused infarction using an infarct-avid, persistent-CA (PCA), (Gd)(ABE-DTTA). PIM is compared to the DE method using Gd(DTPA), and both to triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining histochemistry. Materials and Methods:In six dogs, 48 hours following closed-chest, 180-minute coronary occlusion, DE imaging was carried out. PCA was administered immediately thereafter. Pixel-by-pixel R1 maps of the entire left ventricle (LV) were generated 48 hours after PCA using inversion-recovery with multiple inversion times. R1, ⌬R1, and percentinfarct values were calculated voxel-by-voxel.Results: Significant correlations (P Ͻ 0.01, R Ն 0.8) were obtained for percent-infarct-per-slice (PIS) determined by DE or PIM vs. those from corresponding TTC-stained slices. Compared to TTC, DE overestimated PIS by 32 Ϯ 18%. PIM underestimated PIS by 2.5 Ϯ 4.9%. Infarction fraction overestimation was 29 Ϯ 6% of LV by DE, but only 1.0 Ϯ 2.3% by PIM. Errors with PIM were significantly smaller than those with DE. Infarct area determined by signal intensity was similarly overestimated whether using Gd(DTPA) or Gd(ABE-DTTA). Conclusion:The ⌬R1-based PIM method is highly reproducible and more accurate than DE for quantifying myocardial viability in vivo.

show abstract

“…The anesthetized animals were administered 12.5 ml/kg 2% triphenyltetrazolium-chloride (TTC)-containing saline intravenously [13,14]. The animals were euthanized after 20 min with a high dose of Pentobarbital followed by 100 ml of 2 M potassium chloride solution i.v.…”

Section: Histopathological Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%