English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is commonly used in the diagnosis of intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH). For quantifying IMH with T2* CMR, despite the lack of consensus studies, two different methods [subject-specific T2* (ssT2*) and absolute T2* thresholding (aT2* < 20 ms)] are interchangeably used. We examined whether these approaches yield equivalent information.    Methods  ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients (n = 70) were prospectively recruited for CMR at 4–7 days post revascularization and for 6-month follow up (n = 43). Canines studies were performed for validation purposes, where animals (n = 20) were subject to reperfused myocardial infarction (MI) and those surviving the MI (n = 16) underwent CMR at 7 days and 8 weeks and then euthanized. Both in patients and animals, T2* of IMH and volume of IMH were determined using ssT2* and aT2* < 20 ms. In animals, ex-vivo T2* CMR and mass spectrometry for iron concentration ([Fe] Hemo ) were determined on excised myocardial sections. T2* values based on ssT2* and absolute T2* threshold approaches were independently regressed against [Fe] Hemo  and compared. A range of T2* cut-offs were tested to determine the optimized conditions relative to ssT2*.    Results  While both approaches showed many similarities, there were also differences. Compared to ssT2*, aT2* < 20 ms showed lower T2* and volume of IMH in patients and animals independent of MI age (all p < 0.005). While T2* determined from both methods were highly correlated against [Fe] Hemo  (R 2  = 0.9 for both), the slope of the regression curve for ssT2* was significantly larger as compared to aT2* < 20 ms (0.46 vs. 0.32, p < 0.01). Further, slightly larger absolute T2* cut-offs (patients: 23 ms; animals: 25 ms) showed similar IMH characteristics compared to ssT2*.    Conclusion  Current quantification methods have excellent capacity to identify IMH, albeit the T2*of IMH and volume of IMH based on aT2* < 20 ms are smaller compared to ssT2*. Thus the method used to quantify IMH from T2* CMR may influence the diagnosis for IMH.    Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-021-00779-4.

Quantification of myocardial hemorrhage using T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 1.5T with ex-vivo validation