Submit Manuscripts
Author Information
Subscribe/Renew
Email Alerts
Feedback
RSS Feed

About the Journal
Editorial Board & Staff

Interventions Homepage Imaging Homepage Interventions Homepage Imaging Homepage

ACC.org
Cardiosmart
Cardiosource
CVN
Imaging Library
JACC Imaging
JACC Interventions


Intensive Glycemic Control and the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: Expert Consensus Document

2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization
cardiology careers collections past issues search home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 44:561-563, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.05.007
© 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arai, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arai, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, G. A.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Q-wave and non–q-wave myocardial infarctions through the eyes of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging*

Andrew E. Arai, MD* and Glenn A. Hirsch, MD{dagger}

{dagger} National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Andrew E. Arai, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Building 10, Room B1D416, MSC 1061, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1061, USA.
araia{at}nih.gov

It is worth contemplating how information from evolving technologies alters our understanding of established methodologies. As we have redefined the very definitions of myocardial infarction (MI) in the past several years (1), the cardiology community has strived to unify our understandings of basic pathophysiology with sensible treatment algorithms. For many clinicians, the diagnostic importance of the Q-wave myocardial infarction (QWMI) and the non–Q-wave myocardial infarction (NQWMI) have probably been overshadowed by the more recent practice guidelines centered on the presence or absence of acute ST-segment elevation (2). In this context, it is worth considering the relative value of the Q-wave versus ST-segment classifications of MI to highlight important differences in our approaches to patients. It is also worth considering some insights about MI that have been derived from cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) over the last few years.

In practice, the immediate evaluation and triage of patients with possible or probable acute coronary syndrome begins with a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to look for ST-segment elevation. ST-segment elevation in the appropriate clinical setting triggers percutaneous intervention, if feasible, or thrombolytic therapy if not contraindicated (2,3). Even before the use of high-sensitivity troponin assays, ST-segment elevation on an ECG had a relatively poor sensitivity (<50%) for acute MI (4). One might wonder why a test with such a low sensitivity plays such a central role in patient management when new tests with such low sensitivity would have trouble getting published. The answer is in the high specificity of ST-segment elevation for acute MI, low cost, simplicity, and near-universal availability. The resulting high positive predictive value allows us to safely institute therapies that are either expensive, are labor intensive, or have undesirable potential adverse effects. Furthermore, large infarcts are the most likely to demonstrate ST-segment elevation and are the most likely to benefit from emergency interventions.

The distinction between QWMI and NQWMI continues to have clinical value because this ECG finding reflects the underlying pathology (5). The CMR study by Moon et al. (6) in the current issue of the Journal demonstrates that Q-waves are indicative of larger MIs but are not particularly useful in determining the transmural extent of infarction. The authors graphically demonstrate that even the classification of an infarct as transmural or subendocardial is overly simplistic. Moon et al. (6) found that 99% of patients with QWMI had a least a portion of that infarction in a subendocardial distribution, whereas 28% of patients with a NQWMI had regions of infarction that were transmural.

The NQWMIs have a better in-hospital prognosis, but long-term prognosis is similar or worse than QWMI. The intermediate- and long-term prognosis data for NQWMI probably represent two determining factors. Early after infarction, the patient with a NQWMI is more likely to have residual viable but ischemic myocardium than the patient with a QWMI (7) and is more vulnerable to recurrent infarction or ischemia. Late prognosis is probably determined by the consequences of having ischemic heart disease.

What role do Q-waves play in our current clinical algorithms? The natural history of the Q-wave takes time to develop—often well after the important initial diagnostic and therapeutic interventions have taken place. Thus, the Q-wave does not figure strongly in our acute-management decisions. Although early data from Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction IIIB (8) and Veterans Affairs Non–Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (9) trials did not support an early aggressive interventional approach to NQWMI, more recent clinical trials, such as the Treat Angina With Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy (10) and Fragmin and Fast Revascularization During Instability in Coronary Artery Disease Investigators II (11) trials, support the modern invasive strategy of non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. In the latter studies, an invasive strategy demonstrated improved mortality, reduced rates of recurrent infarction, improved symptoms, and lower readmission rates compared with a conservative strategy. This is particularly true for the patient with non–ST-segment elevation MI, a group that most commonly has a NQWMI. During the chronic phase of the disease, the Q-wave remains the most specific ECG finding for MI.

Many cardiologists wonder what impact CMR and other new technologies will have on the practice of cardiology. Many also question whether CMR is more than an academic or research tool. In short, CMR is a very powerful technique, particularly for characterization of patients with ischemic heart disease. Cine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods provide exquisite views of cardiac anatomy and function (12). Even under the most difficult diagnostic conditions of induced myocardial ischemia at the high heart rates of dobutamine stress testing, CMR is at least as sensitive and specific as dobutamine stress echocardiography for the detection of coronary artery disease (13,14), is feasible on a large scale at a few centers, and provides results that have prognostic significance (15).

Cardiac magnetic resonance viability techniques have generated high interest in the field and are ready for widespread clinical dissemination. Searching the literature published before 1999 will show a range of confusing and contradictory results. A major technical breakthrough around 1999 greatly improved CMR imaging of MI (16). This method has been validated in animal models of acute and chronic MI (17). The method is directly applicable to humans and able to predict the recovery of regional contractile function in patients with coronary artery disease based on the transmural extent of infarction (18). The presence or absence of Q-waves should not be used to determine viability. Although techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), dobutamine echocardiography, and thallium scans can evaluate viability clinically, CMR has the unique ability to define the transmural extent of infarction.

Because there are many clinical tools available for imaging viable myocardium, one might ask, "Why bother with CMR?" This can be answered simply by considering the following characteristics of CMR viability imaging: accuracy, resolution, and simplicity. Human studies have confirmed the accuracy of CMR by the strong correlation between CMR and PET (19). However, these authors note that 47% of CMR scans showing only subendocardial infarction were read as normal on the PET scan. Similarly, Wagner et al. (20) reported that single photon emission computed tomography scans routinely miss subendocardial infarction in animals and in humans. The high image resolution has allowed the detection of infarction associated with recognized side-branch occlusions during percutaneous coronary interventions and the effects of distal embolization (21) and may explain why lower-resolution tests miss small infarctions. Using gadolinium-enhanced CMR, viability can be assessed without a stress test, which facilitates its use in the acutely ill patients.

The skeptic may wonder whether the tiny areas of MI that may be found have any clinical significance. Although long-term studies remain to be completed, the literature on troponin indicates that even the smallest recognized MIs (1) have important prognostic significance (22). Because CMR studies can detect smaller infarcts than other imaging modalities, one can extrapolate that prognostic studies will ultimately demonstrate that CMR viability imaging carries similar prognostic value.

Clinicians also wonder about the general feasibility of CMR. Is it safe to perform a CMR scan on acutely ill patients? Ultimately, the safety and feasibility of CMR is going to be determined by the degree of responsibility accepted by the physicians supervising the study. This statement is no different than quality assurance standards for performing stress testing, transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac catheterization, and percutaneous coronary interventions. When performed by well-trained and conscientious physicians, it is safe to do procedures that were frankly contraindicated 20 to 30 years ago. As an indication of feasibility, we were able to safely study patients with possible or probable acute coronary syndrome within 6 h of presentation to a community hospital emergency department and to achieve higher diagnostic accuracy than a conventional clinical assessment (23).

What are the disadvantages of the CMR technique? The greatest problems limiting widespread dissemination of this technology revolve around reimbursement issues, patient contraindications, physician education, rapidly changing technology, and control of MRI scanners. As of 2003, patients with pacemakers, defibrillators, ferromagnetic brain aneurysm clips, and certain other medical devices should not undergo a CMR scan (24). Although the technology is expensive, MRI scanners can be profitable devices in the treatment of neurological diseases and orthopedics, so it is reasonable to believe the systems could be profitable for cardiovascular diseases, particularly in light of the wide range of cardiovascular applications and the large number of patients requiring evaluation for ischemic heart disease. Other barriers to the widespread implementation of CMR include some significant training issues and the limited number of training centers. Many clinicians find MRI physics to be relatively complicated, and this is further complicated by rapid innovations and technical developments in the field. Finally, disappointing "turf" battles remain between cardiologists and radiologists at many centers.

In a time when medicine relies increasingly on high technology, it is reassuring to recognize the continued positive impact of simple and inexpensive tests such as the ECG. Electrocardiographic abnormalities associated with MI were first reported in 1920 (25). More than 80 years later, the widespread reliance of physicians on the ECG for triage and diagnosis of patients helps put in perspective why this invention warranted awarding a Nobel Prize to Willem Einthoven in 1924. Hopefully, CMR will continue to develop and provide useful diagnostic information for an equally long history beyond the 2003 Nobel Prize awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their discoveries concerning MRI.


   Footnotes
 
* Editorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACC or the American College of Cardiology. Back


   References
Top
 References
 

  1. Alpert JS, Thygesen K, Antman E, Bassand JP. Myocardial infarction redefined—a consensus document of the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:959–969[Free Full Text]
  2. Ryan TJ, Anderson JL, Antman EM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:1328–1428[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Van de Werf F, Ardissino D, Betriu A, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:28–66[Free Full Text]
  4. Gibler WB, Lewis LM, Erb RE, et al. Early detection of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with chest pain and nondiagnostic ECGs: Serial CK-MB sampling in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19:1359–1366[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Liebson PR, Klein LW. The non–Q-wave myocardial infarction revisited: 10 years later. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1997;39:399–444[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Moon JCC, Perez de Arenaza D, Elkington AG, et al. The pathologic basis of Q-wave and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:554–60.
  7. Yang H, Pu M, Rodriguez D, et al. Ischemic and viable myocardium in patients with non–Q-wave or Q-wave myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction: A clinical study using positron emission tomography, echocardiography, and electrocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:592–598[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Effects of tissue plasminogen activator and a comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results of the TIMI IIIB Trial. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Ischemia. Circulation 1994;89:1545–56.
  9. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Crawford MH, et al. Outcomes in patients with acute non–Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. Veterans Affairs Non–Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1785–1792[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, Robertson DH, Gormley GJ, Braunwald E. Invasive versus conservative strategies in unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction following treatment with tirofiban: Rationale and study design of the international TACTICS-TIMI 18 trial. treat angina with aggrastat and determine cost of therapy with an invasive or conservative strategy. thrombolysis in myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:731–736[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators. Lancet 1999;354:708–15.
  12. Barkhausen J, Ruehm SG, Goyen M, Buck T, Laub G, Debatin JF. MR evaluation of ventricular function: True fast imaging with steady-state precession versus fast low-angle shot cine MR imaging: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219:264–269[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Nagel E, Lehmkuhl HB, Bocksch W, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of ischemia-induced wall motion abnormalities with the use of high-dose dobutamine stress MRI: Comparison with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Circulation. 1999;99:763–770[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Hundley WG, Hamilton CA, Thomas MS, et al. Utility of fast cine magnetic resonance imaging and display for the detection of myocardial ischemia in patients not well suited for second harmonic stress echocardiography. Circulation. 1999;100:1697–1702[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hundley WG, Morgan TM, Neagle CM, Hamilton CA, Rerkpattanapipat P, Link KM. Magnetic resonance imaging determination of cardiac prognosis. Circulation. 2002;106:2328–2333[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Simonetti OP, Kim RJ, Fieno DS, et al. An improved MR imaging technique for the visualization of myocardial infarction. Radiology. 2001;218:215–223[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, et al. Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function. Circulation. 1999;100:1992–2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. 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;343:1445–1453[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:162–167[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, Holly TA, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: An imaging study. Lancet. 2003;361:374–379[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Ricciardi MJ, Wu E, Davidson CJ, et al. Visualization of discrete microinfarction after percutaneous coronary intervention associated with mild creatine kinase-MB elevation. Circulation. 2001;103:2780–2783[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Antman EM, Grudzien C, Mitchell RN, Sacks DB. Detection of unsuspected myocardial necrosis by rapid bedside assay for cardiac troponin T. Am Heart J. 1997;133:596–598[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Kwong RY, Schussheim AE, Rekhraj S, et al. Detecting acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2003;107:531–537[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Shellock FG. Reference Manual for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Implants, and Devices. Los Angeles, CA: Biomedical Research Publishing Group; 2004.
  25. Pardee HEB. An electrocardiographic sign of coronary artery obstruction. Arch Intern Med. 1920;26:244–257[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
H.-J. Priebe
Perioperative myocardial infarction--aetiology and prevention
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2005; 95(1): 3 - 19.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
A. N. DeMaria, O. Ben-Yehuda, D. Berman, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, J. D. Knoke, K. U. Knowlton, W. Y.W. Lew, J. Narula, D. Sahn, et al.
Highlights of the year in JACC 2004
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 4, 2005; 45(1): 137 - 153.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal Watch CardiologyHome page
The Pathology of Q-Wave MI: An MRI Study
Journal Watch Cardiology, October 8, 2004; 2004(1008): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arai, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arai, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, G. A.

 
  cardiology careers collections past issues search home