Effects of Primary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction on Early and Late Infarct Size and Left Ventricular Wall Characteristics
Timo Baks, MD*, ,
Robert-Jan van Geuns, MD, PhD*,,
Elena Biagini, MD*,
Piotr Wielopolski, PhD,
Nico R. Mollet, MD*,,
Filippo Cademartiri, MD, PhD*,,
Willem J. van der Giessen, MD, PhD*,
Gabriel P. Krestin, MD, PhD,
Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, FACC*,
Dirk J. Duncker, MD, PhD* and
Pim J. de Feyter, MD, PhD, FACC*,,*
* Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter
Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Relation between myocardial infarct mass at five days and five months after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (solid line). Equation: y = 0.71x – 1.5. Dashed line represents the line of unity (i.e., infarct mass at baseline is infarct mass at follow-up).
|
|
View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 (A) Dysfunctional segments without microvascular obstruction (MO) had an increased end-diastolic wall thickness (EDWT) at five days compared with remote myocardium and myocardium with MO. (B) At five months, segments with MO demonstrated wall thinning compared with remote myocardium and myocardium without MO. End-diastolic wall thickness of myocardium without MO became comparable to remote myocardium.
|
|
View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Dysfunctional myocardial segments without microvascular obstruction (MO) demonstrated improved segmental wall thickening at follow-up, but function remained impaired compared with remote myocardium. Open bars = five days; solid bars = five months.
|
|
|
