Contrast Echocardiography with a Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion in Patients with Previous Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction

Objective. To assess possibilities of contrast echocardiography with quantitative evaluation of myocardial perfusion in patients with previous Q-wave myocardial infarction.

Materials and Methods. We examined 15 men (42-72 years) with coronary artery disease and previous myocardial infarction, and pathological Q-wave in 2 or more ECG leads. Quantification of left ventricular (LV) myocardial perfusion was performed by calculating of the ultrasound signal tissue intensity from the LV myocardial segments during intravenous administration of the ultrasound contrast agent (SonoVue). The Tissue intensive curve (TIC) analysis was done in the end-diastolic period before and on the fourth cardiac cycle after applying the "flash". Changes in the intensity of myocardial perfusion (A₄, dB) was estimated as the difference between the intensity values of the ultrasound signal in the myocardial segment during the period of filling the contrast bubbles on 4-th cardiac cycle and before applying the «flash». Measurements were performed in 16 segments of the LV. A contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (contrast MRI) was performed in order to verify the LV scar. Fibrotic changes of 50% of myocardial wall or more were considered as signs of post-infarction scar.

Results. The dynamics of perfusion and scar presence in 240 myocardial segments were evaluated. The median A₄ was 1 dB (range, -20 to 10 dB). MRI revealed 82 of 240 segments with the large-focal scar. The effectiveness of the diagnostic test (quantitative contrast perfusion echocardiography with A₄ assessment) to detect myocardial scar was investigated. ROC curve analysis showed good model quality, AUC=0,787 (0,730-0,837); sensitivity 82.9%; specificity 75.3%; p<0.01. The cut-off point for A₄ was -1.

Conclusion. A new approach to quantitative contrast assessment of perfusion allows to identify perfusion disorders with high efficiency in patients with previous Q-wave myocardial infarction.

1. Ansheles A.A., Sergienko V.B. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Modalities: What do we Really see? Kardiologiia. 2017;57(7):5–12. In Russian DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2017.7.10000

2. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow With Ultrasound-Induced Destruction of Microbubbles Administered as a Constant Venous Infusion. Circulation. 1998;97(5):473–83. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.97.5.473

3. Karmazanovsky G.G., Stepanova Yu.A., Askerova N.N. History of Development of Contrast-Enhanced Imaging at Ultrasound. Medical Visualization. 2015;2:110–9. In Russian

4. Porter TR, Mulvagh SL, Abdelmoneim SS, Becher H, Belcik JT, Bierig M et al. Clinical Applications of Ultrasonic Enhancing Agents in Echocardiography: 2018 American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Update. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2018;31(3):241–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.11.013

5. Gaibazzi N, Rigo F, Squeri A, Ugo F, Reverberi C. Incremental value of contrast myocardial perfusion to detect intermediate versus severe coronary artery stenosis during stress-echocardiography. Cardiovascular Ultrasound. 2010;8(1):16. DOI: 10.1186/1476-7120-8-16

6. Gaibazzi N, Reverberi C, Lorenzoni V, Molinaro S, Porter TR. Prognostic Value of High-Dose Dipyridamole Stress Myocardial Contrast Perfusion Echocardiography. Circulation. 2012;126(10):1217–24. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.110031

7. Kutty S, Bisselou Moukagna KS, Craft M, Shostrom V, Xie F, Porter TR. Clinical Outcome of Patients With Inducible Capillary Blood Flow Abnormalities During Demand Stress in the Presence or Absence of Angiographic Coronary Disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018;11(10):e007483. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007483

8. Abdelmoneim SS, Dhoble A, Bernier M, Erwin PJ, Korosoglou G, Senior R et al. Quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography during pharmacological stress for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging. 2009;10(7):813– 25. DOI: 10.1093/ejechocard/jep084

9. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). European Heart Journal. 2019;40(3):237–69. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy462

10. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L et al. Recommendations for Cardiac Chamber Quantification by Echocardiography in Adults: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015;16(3):233–71. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jev014

11. Leong-Poi H, Le E, Rim S-J, Sakuma T, Kaul S, Wei K. Quantification of myocardial perfusion and determination of coronary stenosis severity during hyperemia using real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2001;14(12):1173–82. DOI: 10.1067/mje.2001.115982

12. Eskandari M, Monaghan M. Contrast echocardiography in daily clinical practice. Herz. 2017;42(3):271–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00059-017-4533-x