Abstract
Assessment of left ventricular (LV) function is important for decision-making and risk stratification in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Many patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have substantial infarction, but these patients often do not reveal clinical signs of instability, and they rarely fulfill criteria for acute revascularization therapy.
AIM
This study evaluated the potential of strain Doppler echocardiography analysis for the assessment of LV infarct size when compared with standard two-dimensional echo and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) data.
METHODS
Thirty patients with NSTEMI were examined using echocardiography after hospitalization for 1.8 ± 1.1 days for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction, wall motion score index (WMSI), and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS). Infarct size was assessed using delayed enhancement CMR 6.97 ± 3.2 days after admission as a percentage of total myocardial volume.
RESULTS
GLS was performed in 30 patients, and 82.9% of the LV segments were accepted for GLS analysis. Comparisons between patients with a complete set of GLS and standard echo, GLS and CMR were performed. The linear relationship demonstrated moderately strong and significant associations between GLS and ejection fraction (EF) as determined using standard echo (r = 0.452, P = 0.012), WMSI (r = 0.462, P = 0.010), and the gold standard CMR-determined EF (r = 0.57, P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to analyze the ability of GLS to evaluate infarct size. GLS was the best predictor of infarct size in a multivariate linear regression analysis (β = 1.51, P = 0.027). WMSI >1.125 and a GLS cutoff value of −11.29% identified patients with substantial infarction (≥12% of total myocardial volume measured using CMR) with accuracies of 76.7% and 80%, respectively. However, GLS remained the only independent predictor in a multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify an infarct size ≥12%.
CONCLUSION
GLS is a good predictor of infarct size in NSTEMI, and it may serve as a tool in conjunction with risk stratification scores for the selection of high-risk NSTEMI patients.
Keywords: strain rate, infarct size, MRI, NSTEMI
Introduction
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most prevalent manifestation of cardiovascular diseases, and it is associated with high mortality and morbidity.1 Registry data consistently demonstrated that the incidence of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has increased, and it is more frequent than ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).2
Infarct size is a strong prognostic indicator of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction (MI), and the transmural extent of MI is related to the probability of functional recovery after acute revascularization.3–6 Revascularization limits infarct size and salvages viable myocardium, which has dramatically improved the prognosis of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes.7–9 Many patients with NSTEMI exhibit substantial infarction,3,10 but these patients often do not develop ST segment elevation or reveal clinical signs of instability, and the criteria for acute reperfusion therapy are rarely fulfilled.
Techniques based on echocardiography, nuclear imaging, and magnetic resonance are used in current clinical practice to estimate infarct size and identify viable myocardial segments that may benefit from coronary revascularization.4,11,12 However, the routine use of these advanced imaging technologies in daily clinical practice is constrained by availability, costs, and logistics. Acute coronary occlusion induces left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, which is quantified using echocardiography and correlates with infarct size, and this method may be applicable during the very early development phase of MI. Strain echocardiography is an accurate and validated measure of regional systolic LV function that exhibits an excellent ability to differentiate between different levels of infarct size.12–14 Strain echocardiography is a validated and accurate measure of regional LV systolic function in correlation with the standard assessment of final infarct size using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI).15–18 Strain echocardiography was recently validated as a prognostic indicator.19,20
Objectives
The present study evaluated the potential of strain Doppler echocardiography analysis for the assessment of LV infarct size in NSTEMI patients when compared with standard two-dimensional (2D) echo and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) data.
Methods
Patients
The study enrolled 30 patients who presented with recent NSTEMI. All patients were clinically and hemodynamically stable during index admission, and none of the patients were referred for urgent coronary intervention. All patients received optimal medical therapy based on current guidelines.21
Exclusion criteria
Patients with ST segment elevation >0.1 mV (0.2 mV in precordial leads V1–V3) in two or more contiguous leads on any electrocardiogram (ECG) during index admission.
Prior MI.
Bundle branch block with a QRS duration >120 milliseconds.
Severe valvular heart disease.
Atrial fibrillation.
Previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).
Patients with any contraindication to MRI.
Clinical and laboratory evaluations
An independent physician who was blinded to all data performed baseline clinical and laboratory evaluations, including risk factors, Killip class assessment, and ECG. GRACE risk score for NSTEMI was calculated during admission to predict mortality and reinfarction in hospital and at six months. According to GRACE risk score, patients were categorized as low (≥108), intermediate (109–140), and high risk (>140).22 Cardiac markers (eg, troponin I, creatinine kinase enzyme [CK-MB]) were measured in serial samples with at least three samples with six hours in-between.
Echocardiography
All patients underwent standard echocardiographic examinations within 48 hours from NSTEMI using standard commercially available equipment (HD11 XE PHILIPS) with a phased array transducer. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was calculated from apical four-chamber images using the modified Simpson’s method. Wall motion score was assessed in a 16-segment model, and segmental wall motion was judged on the basis of the observed wall thickening and endocardial motion of the myocardial segment as normal = 1, hypokinetic (reduced thickening) = 2, akinetic (absent or negligible thickening) = 3, and dyskinetic (systolic thinning or stretching) = 4. Wall motion score index (WMSI) was measured as the average of the scores of all segments visualized.23
Strain analysis
Three consecutive cycles in three apical planes (four-chamber, two-chamber, and long-axis planes) were obtained using color tissue Doppler echocardiography while holding the breath at the end of expiration to minimize translational movement of the heart, and loops were digitally stored and analyzed offline using Q lab. Aliasing in the velocity mode longitudinal strain was measured using tissue Doppler echocardiography in a 16-segment LV model. Peak negative strain and strain rate, which represent maximum longitudinal shortening, were measured for each segment and obtained from one of the three consecutive cardiac cycles, not as an average of the three cycles. Values of all segments were averaged to obtain global longitudinal strain (GLS). Infarct zone strain was measured as an averaged strain value from the infarcted segments that were detected using contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CE-CMR).
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
CMR was performed for all patients 6.97 ± 3.2 days from admission using 1.5 T scanners equipped with master gradients and a dedicated cardiac software package (Philips Medical Systems). Cine steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences in different planes (two-chamber, four-chamber, and ventricular short-axis planes) were used primarily for quantitative ventricular measurements. Slice thickness was ~8 mm with no gap in-between. Images were obtained while holding the breath at the end of expiration to minimize variations in the position of the diaphragm and the heart. Quantitative evaluation of ventricular function was achieved by obtaining a series of contiguous SSFP cine MRI slices that covered the ventricles in short-axis views. Myocardial delayed enhancement sequences were performed 10–20 minutes after the administration of 0.15 mmol/kg gadolinium-based contrast. MDE was first performed using several inversion times (TI scout) to select the one that best nulls the myocardium. MDE was performed in short- and long-axis planes using this inversion time. Total myocardial area was measured on each short-axis image by manually drawing the endocardium and epicardium in end-diastolic frames, and the area of infarcted myocardium was manually traced. Final infarct size was calculated as a percentage of infarct volume/total myocardial volume. Short- and long-term mortality rates are increased in patients with infarct size ≥12%.3,4 Therefore, we classified the patients into two groups with infarct sizes <12% and ≥12%.
Segmental transmurality was calculated in a 17-segment model of the LV myocardium (the basal and mid-ventricular short-axis slices were divided into six segments, the apical short-axis slices were divided into four segments, and infarcts at the apical cap were detected in two-chamber slices) as the infarct volume divided by myocardial volume per segment, and segments with ≥50% contrast enhancement were judged transmurally infarcted.15
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. Qualitative data are described using numbers and percents. Quantitative data are described using means and standard deviation, medians, and minimum and maximum. Comparisons between different groups of categorical variables were performed using the chi-square test. The distributions of quantitative variables were tested for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Shapiro–Wilk test, and D’Agostino test, and histograms and QQ plots were used for vision tests. Parametric tests were applied for normally distributed data. Nonparametric tests were used for abnormally distributed data. Comparisons between two independent populations for normally distributed data were performed using independent t-tests. Comparisons between two independent populations for abnormally distributed data were performed using Mann–Whitney tests, and the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare different groups. Correlations between two quantitative variables were assessed using the Spearman coefficient. We used intraclass correlation coefficients in 10 randomly selected patients for reproducibility (interobserver variability and intraobserver variability), and two independent observers analyzed the strain in each segment. Agreement of different predictive factors with the outcome was used and expressed in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to analyze a recommended cutoff, and the area under the ROC curve denoted the diagnostic performance of the test. An area >50% denotes acceptable performance, and an area ~100% is the best performance for the test. Multivariate linear regression was assessed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were assessed. Significant test results are quoted as two-tailed probabilities. Significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level.24,25
Ethics statement
The review board of the Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, reviewed and approved this study. All patients were informed about the technique, and we obtained informed consent from all participants. Our research complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Results
Patients’ characteristics
Table 1 provides an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population (n = 30).
VARIABLE | |
---|---|
Age (years) (mean ± SD) | 52.73 ± 9.73 |
Male sex, n (%) | 28 (93.3) |
Risk factors | |
Hypertension, n (%) | 7 (23.3) |
Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 6 (20) |
Dyslipidaemia, n (%) | 22 (73.3) |
Smoking, n (%) | 26 (86.7) |
Family history of CAD, n (%) | 1 (3.3) |
Body surface area (m2) | 1.82 ± 0.14 |
HR (b/m) | 72.7 ± 14.3 |
SBP (mmHg) | 127.8 ± 21.6 |
DBP (mmHg) | 86.7 ± 12.9 |
Pharmacological therapy | |
ACEI/ARBs (%) | 77.6 |
Beta-blockers (%) | 72.6 |
Statins (%) | 90.3 |
Aspirin (%) | 100 |
Clopidogrel (%) | 100 |
Notes: Dyslipidemia was defined as the use of statins or cholesterol >240 mg/dL. Hypertension was defined as the use of antihypertensive medication.
Abbreviations: ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs, angiotensin receptor blockers.
Echocardiography and strain analysis
Echocardiographic evaluations were performed in all patients within 33.17 ± 14.03 hours of admission (range 5–48 hours). Standard echocardiography for evaluations of LVEF, LV volumes, and WMSI was performed for all patients. LVEF% was 56.82 ± 6.19% (range 42.6%–71.6%). A total of 480 segments were examined for wall motion abnormalities, and 86 of these segments (18%) were hypokinetic. The mean WMSI was 1.18 ± 0.14 (range 1.0–1.44).
A total of 398 segments (82.9%) were accepted for GLS, and loops of color tissue Doppler were analyzed with a mean frame rate of 116.4 ± 16.79 Hz. GLS was −11.77 ± 2.54 (range −17.47 to −6.88). Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter-observer and intraobserver variabilities of GLS were 0.948 and 0.967, respectively.
Infarct size and transmurality using CE-CMR
CMR was performed for all patients within 5.3 ± 1.03 days of admission (range three to seven days). The distribution of infarct size in patients is illustrated in Figure 1. The infarct size percentage was 10.93% ± 8.5% of the total myocardial volume (range 0%–24%). Four patients (13.3%) had no visible late enhancement on CE-MRI (infarct size, 0%). A total of 510 segments were assessed for transmurality: 367 segments (71.96%) exhibited no delayed enhancement, 100 segments (19.6%) had non-transmural infarction (1% to <50%), and 43 segments (8.43%) had transmural infarction (50%–100%).
Figure 1.
Infarct size in the study population using CE-CMR.
Infarct transmurality and strain analysis
There were significant positive correlations between segmental peak negative strain and segmental transmurality (r = 0.587, P < 0.001) and strain rate and the corresponding segmental transmurality (r = 0.377, P < 0.001; Fig. 2).
Figure 2.
Scatterplots of the correlations between transmurality by segmental longitudinal strain and strain rate.
Segmental peak negative stain and strain rate significantly separated remote segments without infarction from segments with nontransmural or transmural infarction (P < 0.001 for all). However, these factors did not differentiate between nontransmural and transmural infarctions (P = 0.227 and P = 0.075, respectively). Segmental strain >−9.1 had a specificity of 72.42% and a sensitivity of 71.79% to detect transmural infarctions (ie, transmurality ≥50%).
Cardiac biomarkers and echocardiography versus infarct size
There were significant correlations between infarct size and the peak levels of cardiac biomarkers (R2 = 0.178, P = 0.02), WMSI (R2 = 0.381, P < 0.001), and GLS (R2 = 0.377, P < 0.001; Fig. 3).
Figure 3.
Scatterplots of infarct size using CE-MRI, echocardiographic parameters of LV systolic function, and cardiac enzymes.
Abbreviations: WMSI, wall motion score index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction.
Linear regression model predicting the infarct size percent (without cutoff point) revealed that only GLS significantly predicted the infarct size percent (P = 0.027) after adjusting the other factors (troponin, CK-MB, 2D ejection fraction [EF], and WMSI; Table 2).
Table 2.
Linear regression model predicting the infarct size percent.
B | SE | BETA | t | P VALUE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Troponin | 0.101 | 0.128 | 0.186 | 0.789 | 0.438 |
CK-MB | 0.020 | 0.037 | 0.135 | 0.560 | 0.581 |
Echo 2D EF | 0.053 | 0.279 | 0.038 | 0.192 | 0.850 |
WMSI | 11.499 | 16.43 | 0.189 | 0.700 | 0.491 |
GLS | 1.510 | 0.640 | 0.451 | 2.361* | 0.027* |
Abbreviations: CK-MB, creatinine kinase enzyme; WMSI, wall motion score index; GLS, global longitudinal strain.
Patient characteristics, risk factors, ECG, and cardiac biomarkers with respect to infarct size
There were no significant differences between patients with infarct size <12% and patients with infarct size ≥12% in baseline characteristics, risk factors, clinical presentation, baseline ECG changes (88.9% vs. 100%, P = 0.503), peak troponin level (P = 0.026), and peak CK-MB (P = 0.012).
Echocardiography with respect to infarct size
LVEF, WMSI, and GLS discriminated between patients with infarct size <12% and ≥12% with significant differences between the groups (Table 3 and Table 4).
Table 3.
Correlation between infarct size using CE-MRI and echocardiographic parameters.
INFARCT SIZE <12 (n = 18) | INFARCT SIZE ≥12 (n = 12) | P VALUE | |
---|---|---|---|
ESV (cm3) | 33.44 ± 13.92 | 37.17 ± 9.72 | 0.429 |
EDV (cm3) | 79.39 ± 26.27 | 80.0 ± 20.75 | 0.947 |
EF% | 59.11 ± 5.74 | 53.58 ± 5.28 | 0.013* |
WMSI | 1.11 ± 0.12 | 1.27 ± 0.11 | 0.001* |
GLS | −12.88 ± 2.30 | −10.11 ± 1.95 | 0.002* |
Note: Data are presented as the mean ± SD.
Abbreviations: ESV, end-systolic volume; EDV, end-diastolic volume; EF, ejection fraction; WMSI, wall motion score index; GLS, global longitudinal strain.
Table 4.
ROC analysis of troponin, CK-MB, and echocardiographic parameters for the identification of infarct size ≥12%.
CUTOFF | SENSITIVITY | SPECIFICITY | AUC | P VALUE | PPV | NPV | ACCURACY | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Troponin | 9 | 75.0 | 66.67 | 0.743 (0.565–0.921) | 0.013* | 60.0 | 80.0 | 70.0 |
CK-MB | 28 | 83.33 | 66.67 | 0.773 (0.592–0.955) | 0.026* | 62.5 | 85.7 | 73.33 |
2D EF% | 55 | 58.33 | 72.22 | 0.764 (0.066–0.406) | 0.016* | 58.3 | 72.2 | 66.67 |
WMSI | 1.125 | 83.33 | 72.22 | 0.847 (0.712–0.983) | 0.001* | 66.6 | 86.6 | 76.67 |
GLS | −11.29 | 83.33 | 77.78 | 0.824 (0.673–0.975) | 0.003* | 71.4 | 87.5 | 80.0 |
Note: The AUC is reported with 95% CIs.
Abbreviations: NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
ROC analysis (Fig. 4) demonstrated that GLS exhibited a good ability to identify the patients with infarct size ≥12%, and it was superior to WMSI, EF, and cardiac biomarkers. Figure 5–6 are illustrations of CE-CMR and strain values from 2 patients.
Figure 4.
ROC analysis to identify infarct size ≥12% of the total LV myocardial volume.
Figure 5.
A 50-year-old male patient. ECG showed ST segment depression in leads V3–6 and inverted T waves in leads II, III, and aVF. CE-CMR images obtained in short axis (a) at the basal and midsegments and vertical long-axis (b) orientations show transmural infarction involving the basal and midsegments of the inferior wall (yellow arrows). Total infarct size was 19%. Myocardial strain (C) of the infarcted area in the midsegment of the inferior wall (the yellow curve) is diminished (−8%; n = 17.3 ± 3.7) and the peak is delayed (the small yellow arrow), while the violet curve represents normal strain from normal midanterior wall (−18.5%; n = −17.4 ± 3.6). GLS was −11.2 (n = −15.8 ± 2.2).
Figure 6.
A 48-year-old male patient. ECG showed ST segment depressions in leads II, III, aVF, and V3–6. CE-CMR images obtained in horizontal long-axis (a) and short-axis (b) orientations at midlevels show predominantly transmural infarction involving the midsegments of the anterior and septal walls (violet arrows). Total infarct size was 21%. Strain (C) of the infarcted area in the midanterior wall (violet curve) is diminished (−6.2%; n = −17.4 ± 3.6) and delayed (the small white arrow). The (yellow curve) represents normal strain from normal inferior wall (−19.3%; n = −17.3 ± 3.7). GLS was −6.88 (n = −15.8 ± 2.2).
Angiographic findings
Twenty-seven patients underwent coronary angiography during the index hospitalization, 10 patients had single-vessel CAD, 5 patients had two-vessel CAD, and 12 patients had multivessel CAD. Sixteen of these patients underwent PCI for the culprit artery during the index procedure, six patients were referred for surgical revascularization, and five patients were advised to receive medical treatment.
Discussion
The results of the present study confirm the usefulness of noninvasive imaging to identify high-risk patients presenting with acute NSTEMI. We found a significant correlation between tissue Doppler-derived GLS and infarct size.
The current guidelines recommend acute reperfusion therapy only in clinically unstable NSTEMI patients.21 This strategy may be inadequate in the subgroup of NSTEMI patients who have substantial infarction. Our findings indicate that GLS evaluation provides an accurate assessment of the global myocardial function and the presence of segments with a transmural extent of necrosis. These results provide important clinical implications because these data may provide a means for the early identification of patients who have large and significant infarction and are at high risk. Echocardiography is the only bedside, noninvasive method to identify these patients.
The difference between STEMI and NSTEMI in the emergency room by definition is electrophysiological not pathophysiological. A subgroup of NSTEMI patients has substantial infarction, and there is a significant overlap in final infarct size between STEMI and NSTEMI patients. Even patients with a normal ECG may develop large infarctions.10,26
Infarct size is a strong predictor of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events.5 The current reperfusion therapy is highly effective in reducing infarct size. The relative reduction of infarct size achieved is typically 40% by using thrombolysis and 60% by using primary PCI.27 These procedures salvage viable myocardium and favorably influence infarct healing.28,29 Mortality rate is markedly reduced in the era of reperfusion therapy, and this benefit is largely attributed to a reduction of infarct size.5,6
The association of infarct size with increased mortality rate was demonstrated in previous studies,3,4 which found that an infarct size ≥12% was associated with increased mortality. One of these studies was a large trial that found 12% to be the median infarct size in STEMI patients treated using acute reperfusion, and an IS <12% of the LV was associated with low mortality. Therefore, we used 12% as the cutoff to identify patients who were at high risk. There were 12 patients with infarct size ≥12% in our study, which accounted for ~40% of the total number of patients. This fraction may have occurred because our patients were from a tertiary referral hospital that serves a wide area. Therefore, the patients referred to this hospital were relatively at high risk.
Diagnostic tools for the early assessment of infarct size
The time window for myocardial salvage after acute occlusion of a coronary artery is narrow. Therefore, a tool to predict infarct size should be based on information that can be obtained from the emergency department. Patients’ characteristics, risk factors, and ECG changes did not correlate with infarct size in the present study and could not identify patients with substantial infarction.
Cardiac biomarkers, including CK-MB and troponin, correlated well with infarct size and identified patients with substantial infarction. The amount of enzymes depleted from the heart is proportional to the size of the infarction. However, only a small percentage of the amount depleted reaches the circulation in the absence of coronary revascularization. The remainder is hydrolyzed locally or in lymph tissue.30 Serial samples permit a mathematical modeling of the amount of enzymes depleted, and therefore, an estimate of infarct size as long as a predictable relationship exists between the amount depleted and the amount that reaches the circulation.
Previous studies found that different parameters of cardiac enzyme measurements correlated with infarct size, except for admission and early (< 12 hours) after the onset of chest pain measurements.31–37 This correlation is primarily the result of the slow release of these biomarkers.
Prediction of infarct size using echocardiography
Myocardial systolic function is dependent on a continuous blood supply and deteriorates within seconds of acute coronary occlusion,38 even before the onset of necrosis. Therefore, one important advantage of echocardiography is that it can identify patients with developing substantial infarction at a time point when the intervention may achieve a significant myocardial salvage.
LVEF using echocardiography is a well-established tool to describe LV function, and it has traditionally been used to assess the degree of myocardial damage, as a predictor of outcome and a marker of early and late complications after AMI. However, the assessment of LV damage using echocardiography shortly after revascularization provides less precise infarct size estimates as a result of stunning and the inability of resting myocardial dynamics to convincingly distinguish reversible from irreversible dysfunctional myocardium.38–40 LVEF measured using echocardiography correlated well with LVEF measured using CMR in our study, and both correlated moderately with infarct size. However, the correlation was stronger with EF measured using CMR, which identified patients with substantial infarction, but at a low sensitivity and specificity. One possible reason is that LVEF describes the global LV function, but the infarcted area and reduced function are regional, and a decrease in LVEF supposes that several LV segments are involved. LVEF is primarily a measurement of the radial contraction of the wall plus some longitudinal contraction, which is reflected by the mitral plane movement.
WMSI is another established parameter of LV systolic function that is a validated prognostic indicator after MI.41 Previous studies consistently demonstrated that evaluations of wall motion abnormalities perform better than volume-based LV indices in early risk assessment for MI patients.41,42 However, this technique is semiquantitative, experience dependent, and based on the subjective interpretation of myocardial motion. Our study found a strong correlation between WMSI and infarct size measured using CE-CMR (R2 = 0.381, P < 0.001). We also found that WMSI at a cutoff of 1.3 identified the patients with an infarct size ≥12% with a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 92%.
Strain Doppler echocardiography for the prediction of infarct size
All functional indices based on myocardial deformation (including direct visual assessment, wall thickening, and strain measurements) are load-dependent. This load or local stress dependence is even more complex in the ischemic or infarcted part of the LV, where the mechanical behavior of infarcted subendocardial myocardium is largely dictated by the preserved subepicardial layers.43,44 Similarly, the function of preserved myocardium adjacent to the infarct border is heavily dependent on the mechanical behavior of remote noninfarcted regions.45,46
Longitudinal strain echocardiography is a relatively new parameter that is not widely used in clinical practice. This technique quantifies contraction only in the longitudinal direction. This longitudinal vector of the LV three-dimensional contraction pattern primarily represents subendocardial contraction, and it is likely more sensitive to ischemia when compared with the radial contraction caused by the deformation of the circumferential midmyocardial and subepicardial layers.47 Therefore, global strain may be a better indicator of myocardial damage due to ischemia.
Global strain reflects the averaged segmental myocardial long-axis relative shortening, and it is a global functional measurement that may provide information beyond what is available from WMSI and LVEF.48
GLS was −11.77% ± 2.54% (range −17.47% to −6.88%) in our study. The estimated values of GLS in our study were much lower than those of previously reported studies on healthy individuals.49,50 GLS was also strongly correlated with infarct size (r = 0.601, P < 0.001).
The estimated values of averaged strain from infarct zone (−7.93% ± 2.27) were lower when compared with the values obtained from remote areas (−13.97 ± 2.59). However, strain of the infarcted zone was not significantly correlated with infarct size.
GLS was the only independent predictor of infarct size (P = 0.027) when entered as a covariate with other measures of LV systolic function and cardiac biomarkers in a linear regression analysis. GLS at −11.29% could identify patients with infarct size ≥12% with a sensitivity of 83.33% and specificity of 77.78% (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.824). GLS remained a significant and an independent predictor to identify patients with infarct size ≥12% when entered as a covariate in a logistic regression model, along with troponin, CK-MB, EF, and WMSI.
Transmurality
The evaluation of transmural myocardial infarct extension (≥50%) is predictive of myocardial viability.51 We found a significant correlation between infarct transmurality and segmental peak negative strain and strain rate in corresponding segments (r = 0.587 and r = 0.377, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). However, the relationship was not as strong as between global strain and total infarct size (r = 0.601). One important reason for this finding is that the size and position of each myocardial segment using MRI and echocardiography are not identical. The effect of measurement variability of the two techniques is also reduced by calculating the total infarct size and global strain.
Peak negative segmental longitudinal strain also discriminated normal from necrotic myocardium (P < 0.001), but it did not differentiate between nontransmurally and transmurally infarcted segments (P = 0.227).
The infarction in NSTEMI is predominantly subendocardial, and 70% of infarcted segments in our study were subendocardial. The subendocardial layer of the myocardium contains predominantly longitudinal fibers, and the resolution is optimal because longitudinal strain tracks motions parallel to the ultrasound beam, which contrasts the motion beyond the subendocardial layer where circumferential fibers are predominantly found. This factor explains why the deterioration of longitudinal strain is not more pronounced in segments with transmural necrosis.
Conclusions
GLS is a good predictor of infarct size in NSTEMI, and it may serve as a tool in conjunction with risk stratification scores for the selection of high-risk NSTEMI patients who may benefit from urgent revascularization. These findings may be of health economic interest and possess several potential clinical implications.
Study Limitations
A technical limitation is that poor echocardiographic quality in some patients interfered with tissue Doppler-derived strain. A total of 17.1% of the total number of segments were not feasible for strain measurement in our study. Infarct expansion and edema developing during the first hours may be accompanied by alterations in systolic function, and CMR examination was performed one to two days after echocardiographic evaluation. In our study protocol, we chose to select a subgroup of clinically and hemodynamically stable patients with recent NSTEMI, undergoing PCI as a second therapeutic option for recurrent angina. This is a very common typology of ischemic patients in the clinical practice of our hospital, considering the limited availability of early intervention in patients with NSTEMI in our country. The sample size was relatively small, resulting in the lack of clinical end points, and larger studies are needed to validate these results.
Footnotes
ACADEMIC EDITOR: Thomas E. Vanhecke, Editor in Chief
PEER REVIEW: Three peer reviewers contributed to the peer review report. Reviewers’ reports totaled 1228 words, excluding any confidential comments to the academic editor.
FUNDING: Authors disclose no external funding sources.
COMPETING INTERESTS: Authors disclose no potential conflicts of interest.
Paper subject to independent expert blind peer review. All editorial decisions made by independent academic editor. Upon submission manuscript was subject to anti-plagiarism scanning. Prior to publication all authors have given signed confirmation of agreement to article publication and compliance with all applicable ethical and legal requirements, including the accuracy of author and contributor information, disclosure of competing interests and funding sources, compliance with ethical requirements relating to human and animal study participants, and compliance with any copyright requirements of third parties. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: ML, EE, SA, SE. Analyzed the data: ML, EE, SE, KE. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: ML, EE, KE. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript:ML, EE, KE. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: ML, EE, SA. Jointly developed the structure and arguments for the paper: ML, EE, SA. Made critical revisions and approved final version: ML, EE, SA. All authors reviewed and approved of the final manuscript.
REFERENCES
- 1.WHO Fact Sheet No310. 2013. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html.
- 2.Yeh RW, Sidney S, Chandra M, Sorel M, Selby JV, Go AS. Population trends in the incidence and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2155–65. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Burns RJ, Gibbons RJ, Yi Q, et al. CORE Study Investigators The relationships of left ventricular ejection fraction, end-systolic volume index and infarct size to six-month mortality after hospital discharge following myocardial infarction treated by thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:30–6. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01711-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Miller TD, Christian TF, Hopfenspirger MR, Hodge DO, Gersh BJ, Gibbons RJ. Infarct size after acute myocardial infarction measured by quantitative tomographic 99 mTc sestamibi imaging predicts subsequent mortality. Circulation. 1995;92:334–41. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.92.3.334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gibbons RJ, Valeti US, Araoz PA, Jaffe AS. The quantification of infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1533–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wu KC, Zerhouni EA, Judd RM, et al. Prognostic significance of microvascular obstruction by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97:765–72. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.97.8.765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mehta SR, Cannon CP, Fox KA, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2005;293:2908–17. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.23.2908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fox KA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2435–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.White HD, Van de Werf FJ. Thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97:1632–46. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.97.16.1632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Martin TN, Groenning BA, Murray HM, et al. ST-segment deviation analysis of the admission 12-lead electrocardiogram as an aid to early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction with a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging gold standard. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1021–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1445–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011163432003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Amundsen BH, Helle-Valle T, Edvardsen T, et al. Non-invasive myocardial strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography: validation against sonomicrometry and tagged magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:789–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.10.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Urheim S, Edvardsen T, Torp H, et al. Myocardial strain by Doppler echocardiography. Validation of a new method to quantify regional myocardial function. Circulation. 2000;102:1158–64. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.102.10.1158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gjesdal O, Helle-Valle T, Hopp E, et al. Noninvasive separation of large, medium, and small myocardial infarcts in survivors of reperfused ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a comprehensive tissue Doppler and speckle-tracking echocardiography study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:189–96. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.784900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Finn JP, Nael K, Deshpande V, et al. Cardiac MR imaging: state of the technology. Radiology. 2006;241:347. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2412041866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zamorano JL, Bax J, Rademakers F, Knnuti J, editors. The ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Imaging. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited; 2010. p. 365. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Higgins CB, editor. Cardiovascular MRI and MRA. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Friedrich MG, Abdel-Aty H, Taylor A, et al. The salvaged area at risk in reperfused acute myocardial infarction as visualised by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1581–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Cho GY, Marwick TH, Kim HS, Kim MK, Hong KS, Oh DJ. Global 2-dimensional strain as a new prognosticator in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:618–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Stanton T, Leano R, Marwick T. Prediction of all-cause mortality from global longitudinal speckle strain: comparison with ejection fraction and wall motion scoring. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:356–64. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.109.862334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation (ESC) Eur Heart J. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2015.10.009. pii:ehv320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Fox KA, Dabbous OH, Goldberg RJ, et al. Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE) BMJ. 2006;333:1091–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38985.646481.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al. Chamber Quantification Writing Group. American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee. European Association of Echocardiography Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:1440–63. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2005.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Leslie E, Geoffrey J, James M, editors. Statistical analysis Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics. 4th ed. Oxford Scientific Publications; Oxford, UK: 1991. pp. 411–6. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A Simple Guide to IBM SPSS Statistics for Version 20.0. Student ed. x. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013. p. 115. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kontos MC, Kurdziel KA, Ornato JP, et al. A non-ischemic electrocardiogram does not always predict a small myocardial infarction: results with acute myocardial perfusion imaging. Am Heart J. 2001;141:360–6. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.113079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hochman JS, Choo H. Limitation of myocardial infarct expansion by reperfusion independent of myocardial salvage. Circulation. 1987;75:299–306. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.75.1.299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Schomig A, Kastrati A, Dirschinger J, et al. Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. Stent versus thrombolysis for occluded coronary arteries in patients with acute myocardial infarction study investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(6):385–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200008103430602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Maroko PR, Kjekshus JK, Sobel BE, et al. Factors influencing infarct size following experimental coronary artery occlusions. Circulation. 1971;43:6782. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.43.1.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Roberts R. Enzymatic estimation: creatine kinase. In: Wagner GS, editor. Myocardial Infarction Measurement and Intervention. Hague/Boston/London: Matinus Nijhoff; 1982. pp. 107–42. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Licka M, Zimmermann R, Zehelein J, Dengler TJ, Katus HA, Kübler W. Troponin T concentrations 72 hours after myocardial infarction as a serological estimate of infarct size. Heart. 2002;87:520–4. doi: 10.1136/heart.87.6.520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Panteghini M, Cuccia C, Bonetti G, Giubbini R, Pagani F, Bonini E. Single-point cardiac troponin T at coronary care unit discharge after myocardial infarction correlates with infarct size and ejection fraction. Clin Chem. 2002;48(9):1432–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Giannitsis E, Steen H, Kurz K, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging study for quantification of infarct size comparing directly serial versus single time-point measurements of cardiac troponin T. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(3):307–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Eek C, Grenne B, Brunvand H, et al. Strain echocardiography and wall motion score index predicts final infarct size in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:187–94. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.109.910521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mayr A, Mair J, Klug G, et al. Cardiac troponin T and creatine kinase predict mid-term infarct size and left ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction:A cardiac MR study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33:847–54. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Rakowski T, Dziewierz A, Legutko J, et al. Creatine kinase-MB assessed in patients with acute myocardial infarction correlates with cardiac magnetic resonance infarct size at 6-month follow up. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2014;55:4–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Arruda-Olson AM, Roger VL, Jaffe AS, et al. Troponin-T levels and infarct size by SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: a prospective evaluation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(5):523–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Ingul CB, Stoylen A, Slordahl SA. Recovery of stunned myocardium in acute myocardial infarction quantified by strain rate imaging: a clinical study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:401–10. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2004.09.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Terkelsen CJ, Poulsen SH, Norgaard BL, et al. Does post-systolic motion or shortening predict recovery of myocardial function after primary percutaneous coronary intervention? J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007;20:505–11. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2006.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Park SM, Miyazaki C, Prasad A, et al. Feasibility of prediction of myocardial viability with Doppler tissue imaging following percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation anterior myocardial infarction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:183–9. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2008.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Thune JJ, Kober L, Pfeffer MA, et al. Comparison of regional versus global assessment of left ventricular function in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, or both after myocardial infarction: the valsartan in acute myocardial infarction echocardiographic study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2006;19:1462–5. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2006.05.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Mollema SA, Nucifora G, Bax JJ. Prognostic value of echocardiography after acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2009;95:1732–45. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2008.161836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.MacGowan GA, Shapiro EP, Azhari H, et al. Non-invasive measurement of shortening in the fiber and cross-fiber directions in the normal human left ventricle and in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 1997;96:535–41. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.96.2.535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bogaert J, Maes A, Van de Werf F, et al. Functional recovery of subepicardial myocardial tissue in transmural myocardial infarction after successful reperfusion: an important contribution to the improvement of regional and global left ventricular function. Circulation. 1999;99:36–43. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.1.36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Smalling RW, Ekas RD, Felli PR, et al. Reciprocal functional interaction of adjacent myocardial segments during regional ischemia: an intra-ventricular loading phenomenon affecting apparent regional contractile function in the intact heart. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7:1335–46. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(86)80155-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Kramer CM, Lima JA, Reichek N, et al. Regional differences in function within non-infarcted myocardium during left ventricular remodeling. Circulation. 1993;88:1279–88. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.88.3.1279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Hatle L. Regional myocardial function – a new approach. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:1337–57. doi: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Reisner SA, Lysyansky P, Agmon Y, Mutlak D, Lessick J, Friedman Z. Global longitudinal strain: a novel index of left ventricular systolic function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17(6):630–3. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2004.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Kuznetsova T, Herbots L, Richart T, et al. Left ventricular strain and strain rate in a general population. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:2014–23. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Dalen H, Thorstensen A, Aase SA, et al. Segmental and global longitudinal strain and strain rate based on echocardiography of 1266 healthy individuals: the HUNT study in Norway. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11:176–83. doi: 10.1093/ejechocard/jep194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Wilson LS, Robinson DE. Ultrasonic measurement of small displacements and deformations of tissue. Ultrason Imaging. 1982;4:71–82. doi: 10.1177/016173468200400105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]