Quantification of myocardium at risk in ST- elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance with coronary angiographic jeopardy scores

Assessment of myocardial salvage in patients with STEMI undergoing thrombolysis: ticagrelor versus clopidogrel

Background

In the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the faster and stronger antiplatelet action of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel, as well as its pleiotropic effects, could result in a greater degree of cardioprotection and final infarct size (FIS) limitation. The aim of our study was to comparatively evaluate the effect of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on myocardial salvage index (MSI) in STEMI patients undergoing thrombolysis.

Methods

Forty-two STEMI patients treated with thrombolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel (n = 21) or ticagrelor (n = 21), along with aspirin. Myocardial area at risk (AAR) was calculated according to the BARI and the APPROACH jeopardy scores. FIS was quantified by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) performed 5–6 months post-randomization. MSI was calculated as (AAR-FIS)/AAR × 100%. Primary endpoint of our study was MSI. Secondary endpoints were FIS and CMR-derived left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 5 –6 months post-randomization.

Results

By using the BARI score for AAR calculation, mean MSI was 52.25 ± 30.5 for the clopidogrel group and 54.29 ± 31.08 for the ticagrelor group (p = 0.83), while mean MSI using the APPROACH score was calculated at 51.94 ± 30 and 53.09 ± 32.39 (p = 0.9), respectively. Median CMR-derived FIS—as a percentage of LV—was 10.7% ± 8.25 in the clopidogrel group and 12.09% ± 8.72 in the ticagrelor group (p = 0.6). Mean LVEF at 5–6 months post-randomization did not differ significantly between randomization groups.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the administration of ticagrelor in STEMI patients undergoing thrombolysis offer a similar degree of myocardial salvage, compared to clopidogrel.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02735-1.

Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance to Improve Risk Prediction Following Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging allows comprehensive assessment of myocardial function and tissue characterization in a single examination after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Markers of myocardial infarct severity determined by CMR imaging, especially infarct size and microvascular obstruction, strongly predict recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality. The prognostic information provided by a comprehensive CMR analysis is incremental to conventional risk factors including left ventricular ejection fraction. As such, CMR parameters of myocardial tissue damage are increasingly recognized for optimized risk stratification to further ameliorate the burden of recurrent cardiovascular events in this population. In this review, we provide an overview of the current impact of CMR imaging on optimized risk assessment soon after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review

There were 89 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2017, including 76 original research papers, 4 reviews, 5 technical notes, 1 guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2017 with a corresponding 15% decrease in manuscript submissions from 405 to 346 and thus reflects a slight increase in the acceptance rate from 25 to 26%. The decrease in submissions for the year followed the initiation of the increased author processing charge (APC) for Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) members for manuscripts submitted after June 30, 2018. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2018 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2019) was slightly lower at 5.1 (vs. 5.46 for 2017; as published in June 2018. The 2018 impact factor means that on average, each JCMR published in 2016 and 2017 was cited 5.1 times in 2018. Our 5 year impact factor was 5.82.In accordance with Open-Access publishing guidelines of BMC, the JCMR articles are published on-line in a continuus fashion in the chronologic order of acceptance, with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, over the years, the Editors have felt that it is useful for the JCMR audience to annually summarize the publications into broad areas of interest or themes, so that readers can view areas of interest in a single article in relation to each other and contemporaneous JCMR publications. In this publication, the manuscripts are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought within the journal. In addition, as in the past two years, I have used this publication to also convey information regarding the editorial process and as a "State of our JCMR."This is the 12th year of JCMR as an open-access publication with BMC (formerly known as Biomed Central). The timing of the JCMR transition to the open access platform was "ahead of the curve" and a tribute to the vision of Dr. Matthias Friedrich, the SCMR Publications Committee Chair and Dr. Dudley Pennell, the JCMR editor-in-chief at the time. The open-access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications and I hope that you, our authors, will continue to send your very best, high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. It takes a village to run a journal and I thank our very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Reviewers for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. This entire process would also not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR as I begin my 4th year as your editor-in-chief. It has been a tremendous experience for me and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and highlight of my week!

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2017

There were 106 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2017, including 92 original research papers, 3 reviews, 9 technical notes, and 1 Position paper, 1 erratum and 1 correction. The volume was similar to 2016 despite an increase in manuscript submissions to 405 and thus reflects a slight decrease in the acceptance rate to 26.7%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2017 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2018) was minimally lower at 5.46 (vs. 5.71 for 2016; as published in June 2017), which is the second highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2017 impact factor means that an average, each JCMR paper that were published in 2015 and 2016 was cited 5.46 times in 2017.In accordance with Open-Access publishing of Biomed Central, the JCMR articles are published on-line in continuus fashion and in the chronologic order of acceptance, with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, over the years, the Editors have felt that it is useful to annually summarize the publications into broad areas of interest or theme, so that readers can view areas of interest in a single article in relation to each other and other contemporary JCMR articles. In this publication, the manuscripts are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought within the journal. In addition, I have elected to use this format to convey information regarding the editorial process to the readership.I hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your very best, high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. I thank our very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and Reviewers for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner and that the JCMR continues to be recognized as the forefront journal of our field. And finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR as I begin my 3rd year as your editor-in-chief. It has been a tremendous learning experience for me and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and highlight of my week!