Magnetic resonance imaging in interventional therapy of patients with acute myocardial infarction prior to and after treatment
- Authors:
- Published online on: July 21, 2016 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3537
- Pages: 1755-1759
-
Copyright: © Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Metrics: Total
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in interventional therapy of patients with acute myocardial infarction prior to and after treatment. Fifty-six cases of AMI patients with elective treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were continuously selected. Patients with an incidence of 7-10 days were treated with CMR and echocardiography to evaluate the quality of myocardial infarction, visual score method (VSM), wall motion score abnormality, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients with an incidence of 10-14 days were treated with PCI, and CMR and echocardiography were evaluated after 6 months, after which the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared. The infarction quality, VSM score and wall motion abnormality (WMA) score were significantly reduced following surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Ultrasound evaluation of LVEDD, LVESD, and LVEF prior to and after surgery was compared, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Evaluation of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in LVEDD prior to surgery was increased compared with that of the ultrasound in LVEDD, whereas MRI in LVESD and LVEF was decreased compared to that of the ultrasound obtained for LVESD and LVEF. Additionally, postoperative LVEDD was reduced compared with preoperative LVEDD, whereas LVEF was increased, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). However, the evaluation of LVESD using the two methods exhibited no significant change. MACE occurred in 7 (12.5%) of 56 cases. The infarction quality of patients in the MACE group following surgery indicated that VSM and WMA scores were significantly higher than the group without MACE, while LVEF was lower than the MACE group following surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05), albeit the ultrasound results of LVEF indicated no difference. In conclusion, CMR evaluation of AMI patients with elective PCI treatment in myocardial remodeling and cardiac function were more sensitive and accurate than with cardiac ultrasound.
