These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between contrast echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging to predict improvement of myocardial function after primary coronary intervention.
    Author: Biagini E, van Geuns RJ, Baks T, Boersma E, Rizzello V, Galema TW, de Feyter PJ, ten Cate FJ.
    Journal: Am J Cardiol; 2006 Feb 01; 97(3):361-6. PubMed ID: 16442396.
    Abstract:
    The relative merits of myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict myocardial function improvement after percutaneous coronary intervention have not been evaluated until now. We studied 35 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using MCE and MRI and first-pass imaging for evaluation of myocardial perfusion. Delayed-enhanced MRI was included as another method to differentiate viable from infarcted tissue. MCE was performed by power modulation and intravenous Sonovue. A 16-segment model of the left ventricle was used to analyze all myocardial contrast echocardiograms and magnetic resonance images. At 60 days of follow-up, MCE showed improvement of function in 115 of 192 (60%) dysfunctional segments. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the prediction of functional improvement were comparable among MCE (87%, 90%, and 88%), first-pass MRI (87%, 60%, and 79%), and delayed-enhancement MRI (75%, 100%, and 82%, respectively, all p = NS). In conclusion, MCE and MRI allowed for prediction of myocardial function improvement after percutaneous coronary intervention. MCE had a comparable accuracy and, as a bedside technique, may be an alternative tool in the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]