Author + information
- Received December 30, 2016
- Revision received February 21, 2017
- Accepted March 2, 2017
- Published online March 5, 2018.
- Sebastian J. Reinstadler, MD, PhDa,b,c,
- Thomas Stiermaier, MDa,b,
- Johanna Liebetrau, MDa,b,
- Georg Fuernau, MDa,b,
- Charlotte Eitel, MDa,b,
- Suzanne de Waha, MDa,b,
- Steffen Desch, MDa,b,
- Jan-Christian Reil, MDa,b,
- Janine Pöss, MDa,b,
- Bernhard Metzler, MDc,
- Christian Lücke, MDd,
- Matthias Gutberlet, MDd,
- Gerhard Schuler, MDe,
- Holger Thiele, MDa,b and
- Ingo Eitel, MDa,b,∗ ()
- aUniversity Heart Center Lübeck, Medical Clinic II, Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
- bGerman Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), partner site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
- cUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
- dDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig–Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany
- eDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, University of Leipzig–Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany
- ↵∗Address for correspondence:
Dr. Ingo Eitel, University Heart Center Lübeck, Medical Clinic II, Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany.
Objectives This study assessed the prognostic significance of remote zone native T1 alterations for the prediction of clinical events in a population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and compared it with conventional markers of infarct severity.
Background The exact role and incremental prognostic relevance of remote myocardium native T1 mapping alterations assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) after STEMI remains unclear.
Methods We included 255 consecutive patients with STEMI who were reperfused within 12 h after symptom onset. CMR core laboratory analysis was performed to assess left ventricular (LV) function, standard infarct characteristics, and native T1 values of the remote, noninfarcted myocardium. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, reinfarction, and new congestive heart failure within 6 months (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]).
Results Patients with increased remote zone native T1 values (>1,129 ms) had significantly larger infarcts (p = 0.012), less myocardial salvage (p = 0.002), and more pronounced LV dysfunction (p = 0.011). In multivariable analysis, remote zone native T1 was independently associated with MACE after adjusting for clinical risk factors (p = 0.001) or other CMR variables (p = 0.007). In C-statistics, native T1 of remote myocardium provided incremental prognostic information beyond clinical risk factors, LV ejection fraction, and other markers of infarct severity (all p < 0.05). The addition of remote zone native T1 to a model of prognostic CMR parameters (ejection fraction, infarct size, and myocardial salvage index) led to net reclassification improvement of 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 1.17; p < 0.001) and to an integrated discrimination improvement of 0.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 0.13; p = 0.01).
Conclusions In STEMI patients treated by PPCI, evaluation of remote zone alterations by quantitative noncontrast T1 mapping provided independent and incremental prognostic information in addition to clinical risk factors and traditional CMR outcome markers. Remote zone alterations may thus represent a novel therapeutic target and a useful parameter for optimized risk stratification. (Effect of Conditioning on Myocardial Damage in STEMI [LIPSIA-COND]; NCT02158468)
Dr. Gutberlet has received speakers honoraria from Bayer, Siemens, Bracco, and Philips. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Drs. Thiele and Eitel contributed equally to this work and are the senior authors.
- Received December 30, 2016.
- Revision received February 21, 2017.
- Accepted March 2, 2017.
- 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation
This article requires a subscription or purchase to view the full text. If you are a subscriber or member, click Login or the Subscribe link (top menu above) to access this article.