King's College London

Research portal

Understanding and Improving Risk Assessment After Myocardial Infarction Using Automated Left Ventricular Shape Analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Jorge Corral Acero, Andreas Schuster, Ernesto Zacur, Torben Lange, Thomas Stiermaier, Sören J. Backhaus, Holger Thiele, Alfonso Bueno-Orovio, Pablo Lamata, Ingo Eitel, Vicente Grau

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1563-1574
Number of pages12
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume15
Issue number9
DOIs
PublishedSep 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information: This work was supported by the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Sklodowska-Curie (ga 764738), the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, the British Heart Foundation (PG/16/75/32383, FS/17/22/32644), and the Wellcome Trust (209450/Z/17). The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors

King's Authors

Abstract

Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and end-systolic volume (ESV) remain the main imaging biomarkers for post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk stratification. However, they are limited to global systolic function and fail to capture functional and anatomical regional abnormalities, hindering their performance in risk stratification. Objectives: This study aimed to identify novel 3-dimensional (3D) imaging end-systolic (ES) shape and contraction descriptors toward risk-related features and superior prognosis in AMI. Methods: A multicenter cohort of AMI survivors (n = 1,021; median age 63 years; 74.5% male) who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) at a median of 3 days after infarction were considered for this study. The clinical endpoint was the 12-month rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; n = 73), consisting of all-cause death, reinfarction, and new congestive heart failure. A fully automated pipeline was developed to segment CMR images, build 3D statistical models of shape and contraction in AMI, and find the 3D patterns related to MACE occurrence. Results: The novel ES shape markers proved to be superior to ESV (median cross-validated area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.681 [IQR: 0.679-0.684] vs 0.600 [IQR: 0.598-0.602]; P < 0.001); and 3D contraction to LVEF (0.716 [IQR: 0.714-0.718] vs 0.681 [IQR: 0.679-0.684]; P < 0.001) in MACE occurrence prediction. They also contributed to a significant improvement in a multivariable setting including CMR markers, cardiovascular risk factors, and basic patient characteristics (0.747 [IQR: 0.745-0.749]; P < 0.001). Based on these novel 3D descriptors, 3 impairments caused by AMI were identified: global, anterior, and basal, the latter being the most complementary signature to already known predictors. Conclusions: The quantification of 3D differences in ES shape and contraction, enabled by a fully automated pipeline, improves post-AMI risk prediction and identifies shape and contraction patterns related to MACE occurrence.

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454