Myocardium at risk: Reasons and methods for measuring the extent

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, Feb 2013

Alessia Gimelli MD, Daniele Rovai MD, FESC

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12350-012-9659-x.pdf

Myocardium at risk: Reasons and methods for measuring the extent

Alessia Gimelli Daniele Rovai FESC If a coronary artery is acutely occluded, the downstream myocardium becomes severely under-perfused and at risk of necrosis. The area of myocardium at jeopardy of infarction is usually referred to as area at risk. It is intuitive that the extent of myocardium at risk downstream from an occluded coronary artery does not have the dimension of an area, but rather that of a volume or a mass. Indeed, the extent of myocardium at risk is usually expressed in grams or in percentage of ventricular myocardium. However, because the initial experiments were carried out by injecting dyes or radionuclide-labeled microspheres upstream from the occluded coronary artery, and because the myocardium at risk was defined postmortem as the non-stained or non-labeled area in cross-sectional slices of the heart, the term area at risk has become common and hence entered the medical dictionary.1,2 If a flow tracer is injected into a coronary artery proximal to its occlusion, and a second flow tracer is injected after the occlusion upstream the occluded artery, it becomes evident that the extent of myocardium perfused by a given open artery is larger than the myocardium at risk when the same vessel is occluded (Figure 1A, B). This difference is on average 20% in the canine heart, and is due to the collateral circulation.3 It has been traditionally assumed that coronary arteries are functional end-arteries under physiological conditions. However, even in the absence of coronary stenoses or in entirely normal hearts, brief periods of coronary - occlusion produced by balloon inflation are not followed by electrocardiographic signs of myocardial ischemia in 20%-25% of patients. This is attributed to collateral circulation.4 This phenomenon is more prominent in the case of preexisting collaterals, as observed in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. Thus, the extent of the area at risk after coronary occlusion is influenced both by an anatomical factor (the size and hierarchy of the occluded vessel) and by a series of functional factors (largely related to the collateral circulation). For this reason, an acute coronary occlusion causes a smaller infarction and a less severe hemodynamic impairment in an older patient with extensive coronary atherosclerosis and well-developed collaterals than in a younger patient without preexisting collaterals. Another functional factor is how rapid is the occlusion. If the occlusion is very slow (as it can be obtained in experimental animals and as it occurs in patients with coronary lesions slowly evolving toward total occlusion), collaterals have the time to develop and to minimize the extent of myocardium at risk. This goes in parallel with the common observation of patients with even complete occlusion of a proximal coronary artery and absence of myocardial infarction. Finally, if the perfusion territory is small, as when a secondary branch is occluded, collateral vessels can totally obscure the area of myocardium at risk. WHY MEASURE THE EXTENT OF MYOCARDIUM AT RISK There are several reasons for measuring the extent of the area at risk in the clinical setting. First of all it is important to have an idea of how large the infarction can become. It is well known that the size of a myocardial infarction depends upon several factors, including duration of coronary occlusion, presence of a residual stenosis, myocardial preconditioning, and myocardial oxygen consumption during occlusion (as seen with the effects of beta blockers). However, the infarction can never become larger than myocardium at risk. In other words, knowing the area at risk of necrosis during coronary occlusion provides us information on the worst-case scenario, which could be useful in clinical decision-making. If this information was available, prompt revascularization could be indicated in case of a large risk area not accompanied by clear electrocardiographic changes; alternatively, revascularization could be postponed in the case of a very small risk area. Other information that can be derived from the assessment of the area at risk is the extent of salvaged myocardium, which requires an estimate of myocardial infarct size as compared to the area at risk (Figure 1C, D). This information has been very useful in evaluating the different reperfusion strategies over the past few decades. Finally, the location of the myocardium at risk (rather than its extent) can be useful in identifying the infarct-related artery. This is mostly true in patients with extensive coronary artery disease in whom information on the culprit vessel to be revascularized is not obvious. HOW TO MEASURE THE EXTENT OF MYOCARDIUM AT RISK Although a variety of methods is currently available to measure the risk area, each of them shows several limitations in the clinical setting. An elevation of the ST segment in the electrocardiographic leads reflecting the area of myocardium at risk is the typical sign of acute (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12350-012-9659-x.pdf

Alessia Gimelli MD, Daniele Rovai MD, FESC. Myocardium at risk: Reasons and methods for measuring the extent, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 2013, pp. 23-26, Volume 20, Issue 1, DOI: 10.1007/s12350-012-9659-x