Continuous Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging after Coronary Revascularization for Left Ventricular Dysfunction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.7361Keywords:
left ventricular dysfunction, coronary revascularization, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, coronary heart diseaseAbstract
Objective: To determine the contribution of serial cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following coronary revascularization (CR) to the clinical management of patients with left ventricular insufficiency. Methods: The study objects comprised the clinical data of 145 patients with CR undergoing CR surgery for left ventricular insufficiency in our hospital from January 2021 to January 2023. The patients were divided into the case (n = 35, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%) and control (n = 110, LVEF ≥50%) groups based on the LVEF recorded in the medical record system 6 months after surgery. Preoperative LVEF left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), cardiac index (CI), and other cardiac magnetic resonance detection parameters were compared. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the prognostic factors of patients undergoing CR after CR surgery for left ventricular insufficiency. The receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC) were calculated, and the best prediction threshold was determined. The prognostic value of cardiac MRI in CR surgery for left ventricular dysfunction was observed. Results: Cardiac MRI revealed that the case group had higher LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and CI than the control group. However, the LVEF index was lower than that in the control group (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis was conducted for indicators with differences, and the results indicate LVEF as a protective factor for the postoperative efficacy of the patients, with an odds ratio (OR) <1. LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and CI were all risk factors for the postoperative efficacy of the patients, with an OR >1. The AUC values of LVEF, LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and CI were 0.698, 0.674, 0.654, 0.700, 0.572, and 0.812, respectively. The optimal threshold values were 53.57%, 112.33 and 68.5 mL, and 205.51, 163.99, and 2.14 L/m2, and their corresponding sensitivities reached 0.618, 0.514, 0.654, 0.800, 0.371, and 0.829 for each index. The specificities were 0.800, 0.836, 0.771, 0.609, 0.836, and 0.645, which indicate that LVEF, LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and CI had a certain degree of predictive value for postoperative cardiac function recovery. Conclusion: LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVI, LVESVI, CI, and LVEF are all factors affecting the clinical efficacy in patients undergoing CR after left ventricular insufficiency. In addition, cardiac MRI can effectively detect the above factors and effectively predict the postoperative efficacy among patients.
References
Stone PH, Libby P, Boden WE. Fundamental Pathobiology of Coronary Atherosclerosis and Clinical Implications for Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease Management-The Plaque Hypothesis: A Narrative Review. JAMA Cardiology. 2023; 8: 192–201.
Yan L, Li K, Zhang W, Shen C, Ma L, Sun Y. The relationship between phosphodiesterase 4D gene polymorphism and coronary heart disease. Cellular and Molecular Biology. 2022; 67: 26–32.
Xi Z, Qiu H, Guo T, Wang Y, Dou K, Xu B, et al. Prevalence, Predictors, and Impact of Coronary Artery Ectasia in Patients With Atherosclerotic Heart Disease. Angiology. 2023; 74: 47–54.
Patel KP, Michail M, Treibel TA, Rathod K, Jones DA, Ozkor M, et al. Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021; 14: 2083–2096.
Abdalwahab A, Al-Atta A, Egred M, Alkhalil M, Zaman A. Coronary revascularization in patients with left ventricle systolic dysfunction, current challenges and clinical outcomes. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022; 23: 33.
Jakob P, Holy EW, Siegrist P, Michel J, Manka R, Kasel M, et al. The Role of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndromes. Praxis (Bern 1994). 2021; 110: 313–323. (In German)
Baber U. Coronary Artery Calcification and Mortality After Revascularization: Look Beyond the Heart. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022; 15: 205–207.
Desroche LM, Mandry D, Ducrocq G, Durand-Zaleski I, Alfaiate T, Millischer D, et al. Multicentre medicoeconomic evaluation of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting coronary artery disease in left ventricular dysfunction: The CAMAREC study design. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2023; 116: 366–372.
Doan TT, Wilkinson JC, Loar RW, Pednekar AS, Masand PM, Noel CV. Regadenoson Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Children With Kawasaki Disease and Coronary Artery Disease. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 124: 1125–1132.
Indorkar R, Kwong RY, Romano S, White BE, Chia RC, Trybula M, et al. Global Coronary Flow Reserve Measured During Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is an Independent Predictor of Adverse Cardiovascular Events. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019; 12: 1686–1695.
Gerbaud E, Elbaz M, Lattuca B. New insights into cardiogenic shock and coronary revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020; 113: 276–284.
Sayyed A, Das S, Das P, Shales S, Kapoor L, Saha A, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for myocardial viability assessment: Optimizing surgical revascularization in ischemic heart disease. Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals. 2023; 31: 691–698.
Wang TKM, Ayoub C, Chetrit M, Kwon DH, Jellis CL, Cremer PC, et al. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques and Applications for Pericardial Diseases. Circulation. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2022; 15: e014283.
Petersen SE, Khanji MY, Plein S, Lancellotti P, Bucciarelli-Ducci C. European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging expert consensus paper: a comprehensive review of cardiovascular magnetic resonance normal values of cardiac chamber size and aortic root in adults and recommendations for grading severity. European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019; 20: 1321–1331.
Holtackers RJ, Wildberger JE, Wintersperger BJ, Chiribiri A. Impact of Field Strength in Clinical Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Investigative Radiology. 2021; 56: 764–772.
Clarke GD, Li J, Kuo AH, Moody AJ, Nathanielsz PW. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: insights into developmental programming and its consequences for aging. Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease. 2021; 12: 203–219.
Agoston-Coldea L, Zlibut A, Revnic R, Florea M, Muntean L. Current advances in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in systemic sclerosis. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. 2021; 25: 3718–3736.
Pons-Riverola A, Ghosh AK. An Update on the Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Cancer Patients. Current Cardiology Reports. 2022; 24: 2139–2147.
Ribas FF, Hueb W, Rezende PC, Rochitte CE, Nomura CH, Villa AV, et al. Abnormal release of cardiac biomarkers in the presence of myocardial oedema evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance after uncomplicated revascularization procedures. European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2023; 24: 1700–1709.
Kyhl K, Ahtarovski KA, Nepper-Christensen L, Ekström K, Ghotbi AA, Schoos M, et al. Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit Lesion Only in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Substudy. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019; 12: 721–730.
Mani P, Hachamovitch R. Can Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Identify Potential Survival Benefit With Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease? JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020; 13: 1687–1689.
Kanaji Y, Sugiyama T, Hoshino M, Yasui Y, Nogami K, Ueno H, et al. Prognostic Value of Coronary Sinus Flow Quantification by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022; 11: e023519.
Kwon DH, Obuchowski NA, Marwick TH, Menon V, Griffin B, Flamm SD, et al. Jeopardized Myocardium Defined by Late Gadolinium Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Survival in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Impact of Revascularization. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2018; 7: e009394.
Patel AR, Salerno M, Kwong RY, Singh A, Heydari B, Kramer CM. Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: JACC Review Topic of the Week. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021; 78: 1655–1668.
Hwang HY, Yeom SY, Park EA, Lee W, Jang MJ, Kim KB. Serial cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after surgical coronary revascularization for left ventricular dysfunction. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2020; 159: 1798–1805.
Antiochos P, Ge Y, Heydari B, Steel K, Bingham S, Abdullah SM, et al. Prognostic Value of Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Known Coronary Artery Disease. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2022; 15: 60–71.
Chen D, Lu M, Fu Z, Ding K, Liang P. The association between the MELD-XI score and heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction after coronary artery stenting-a retrospective study. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2023; 15: 2721–2728.
Das A, Kelly C, Teh I, Stoeck CT, Kozerke S, Sharrack N, et al. Pathophysiology of LV Remodeling Following STEMI: A Longitudinal Diffusion Tensor CMR Study. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2023; 16: 159–171.
Vinter O, Kordić K, Klobučar I, Gabrić ID, Boban M, Trbušić M. Nomogram containing simple routine clinical and biochemical parameters can predict pathologic ventricular remodeling in stemi patients. Acta Clinica Croatica. 2022; 60: 379–388.
Chen Y, Fan Y, Men M, Shen G, Ma A. High cystatin C levels predict long-term mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing late percutaneous coronary intervention: A retrospective study. Clinical Cardiology. 2019; 42: 572–578.
