» Articles » PMID: 38637609

Comprehensive Characterization of Cardiac Contraction for Improved Post-infarction Risk Assessment

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2024 Apr 18
PMID 38637609
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aims at identifying risk-related patterns of left ventricular contraction dynamics via novel volume transient characterization. A multicenter cohort of AMI survivors (n = 1021) who underwent Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) after infarction was considered for the study. The clinical endpoint was the 12-month rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, n = 73), consisting of all-cause death, reinfarction, and new congestive heart failure. Cardiac function was characterized from CMR in 3 potential directions: by (1) volume temporal transients (i.e. contraction dynamics); (2) feature tracking strain analysis (i.e. bulk tissue peak contraction); and (3) 3D shape analysis (i.e. 3D contraction morphology). A fully automated pipeline was developed to extract conventional and novel artificial-intelligence-derived metrics of cardiac contraction, and their relationship with MACE was investigated. Any of the 3 proposed directions demonstrated its additional prognostic value on top of established CMR indexes, myocardial injury markers, basic characteristics, and cardiovascular risk factors (P < 0.001). The combination of these 3 directions of enhancement towards a final CMR risk model improved MACE prediction by 13% compared to clinical baseline (0.774 (0.771-0.777) vs. 0.683 (0.681-0.685) cross-validated AUC, P < 0.001). The study evidences the contribution of the novel contraction characterization, enabled by a fully automated pipeline, to post-infarction assessment.

References
1.
Masci P, Ganame J, Francone M, Desmet W, Lorenzoni V, Iacucci I . Relationship between location and size of myocardial infarction and their reciprocal influences on post-infarction left ventricular remodelling. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(13):1640-8. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr064. View

2.
Amzulescu M, De Craene M, Langet H, Pasquet A, Vancraeynest D, Pouleur A . Myocardial strain imaging: review of general principles, validation, and sources of discrepancies. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 20(6):605-619. PMC: 6529912. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jez041. View

3.
Brateanu A . Heart rate variability after myocardial infarction: what we know and what we still need to find out. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015; 31(10):1855-60. DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1086992. View

4.
Ruijsink B, Puyol-Anton E, Oksuz I, Sinclair M, Bai W, Schnabel J . Fully Automated, Quality-Controlled Cardiac Analysis From CMR: Validation and Large-Scale Application to Characterize Cardiac Function. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 13(3):684-695. PMC: 7060799. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.05.030. View

5.
Backhaus S, Metschies G, Zieschang V, Erley J, Mahsa Zamani S, Kowallick J . Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 85(1):357-368. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28437. View