Cargando…

Baseline LV ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance and 2D echocardiography after ST-elevation myocardial infarction – influence of infarct location and prognostic impact

OBJECTIVES: The comparability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurements by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and 2D echocardiography (2DE) early after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. METHODS: In this study, LVEF measured by CMR and 2DE (Simpson’s method) we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwaiger, Johannes P., Reinstadler, Sebastian J., Tiller, Christina, Holzknecht, Magdalena, Reindl, Martin, Mayr, Agnes, Graziadei, Ivo, Müller, Silvana, Metzler, Bernhard, Klug, Gert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31428825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06316-3
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: The comparability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurements by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and 2D echocardiography (2DE) early after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. METHODS: In this study, LVEF measured by CMR and 2DE (Simpson’s method) were compared in 221 patients after STEMI treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. 2DE image quality was systematically assessed and studies reported by an accredited examiner. Intermodality agreement was assessed by the Bland–Altman method. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for heart failure. Patients were followed up for a median of 40.9 months (IQR 28.1–56). RESULTS: After non-anterior STEMI, LVEF measurements by 2DE (single and biplane) were consistently underestimated in comparison to CMR (CMR 55.7 ± 9.5% vs. 2DE-4CV 49 ± 8.2% (p = 0.06), 2DE-2CV 52 ± 8% (p < 0.001), 2DE-biplane 53.5 ± 7.1% (p = 0.01)). After anterior STEMI, there was no significant difference in LVEF measurements by 2DE and CMR with acceptable limits of agreement (CMR 49 ± 11% vs. 2DE-4CV 49 ± 8.2% (p = 0.8), 2DE-2CV 49 ± 9.2% (p = 0.9), 2DE-biplane 49.6 ± 8% (p = 0.5)). In total, 15% of patients experienced a MACE during follow-up. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, reduced LVEF (< 52%) as assessed by either 2DE or CMR was predictive of MACE (2DE HR = 2.57 (95% CI 1.1–6.2), p = 0.036; CMR HR = 2.51 (95% CI 1.1–5.7), p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: At baseline after non-anterior STEMI, 2D echocardiography significantly underestimated LVEF in comparison to CMR, whereas after anterior infarction, measurements were within acceptable limits of agreement. Both imaging modalities offered similar prognostic values when a reduced LVEF < 52% was applied. KEY POINTS: • After non-anterior STEMI, 2D-echocardiography significantly underestimated LVEF compared with cardiac MRI • An ejection fraction of < 52% in the acute post-infarct period by both 2D echocardiography and CMR offered similar prognostic values