Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gender differences in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging after acute myocardial infarction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 07 April 2013

Abstract

Besides different risk profiles for cardiovascular events in men and women, several studies reported gender differences in mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). As infarct size has been shown to correlate with mortality, it is widely accepted as surrogate marker for clinical outcome. Currently, cardiovascular imaging studies covering the issue of gender differences are rare. As magnetic resonance scar characterization parameters are emerging as additional prognostic factors after acute myocardial infarction, we sought to evaluate gender differences in CMR infarct characteristics in patients after acute myocardial infarction. We prospectively analyzed patients (n = 448) with AMI and primary angioplasty, who underwent contrast enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging on a 1.5 T scanner in median 5 [Galatius-Jensen et al. in BMJ 313(7050):137–140, (1996), Burns et al. in J Am Coll Cardiol 39(1):30–36, (2002)] days after the acute event. CMR scar size was measured 15 min after gadolinium injection. In addition presence and extent of microvascular obstruction (MVO) was assessed. A matched pair analysis was performed in order to exclude confounding by gender related co-morbidities and gender differences in established clinical risk factors. Matching process according to clinical risk defined by GRACE score resulted in 93 mixed gender couples. Women were significantly older than men (64.4 ± 11.9 vs. 60.5 ± 12.3, p = 0.03) and presented with a significantly better ejection fraction before angioplasty (48.9 ± 8.4 vs. 46.2 ± 8.9, p = 0.04). Infarct size did not differ significantly between women and men (13.5 ± 10.7 vs. 15.1 ± 11.8, p = 0.32). Size of MVO was significantly smaller in women than in men (0.48 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 3.0, p = 0.03). Comparing scar characterization between women and men with similar risk profiles revealed no gender differences in scar size. Size of MVO, however, was significantly smaller in women and might reflect better cardioprotective mechanisms in women. Whether these changes have prognostic implications has to be tested on a larger patient population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heer T et al (2002) Gender differences in acute myocardial infarction in the era of reperfusion (the MITRA registry). Am J Cardiol 89(5):511–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Koek HL et al (2006) Short- and long-term prognosis after acute myocardial infarction in men versus women. Am J Cardiol 98(8):993–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hasdai D et al (2003) Effect of gender on outcomes of acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol 91(12):1466–1469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Galatius-Jensen S et al (1996) Sex related differences in short and long-term prognosis after acute myocardial infarction: 10 year follow up of 3073 patients in database of first Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial. BMJ 313(7050):137–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Griffith D et al (2005) Early and late mortality after myocardial infarction in men and women: prospective observational study. Heart 91(3):305–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burns RJ et al (2002) The relationships of left ventricular ejection fraction, end-systolic volume index and infarct size to 6-month mortality after hospital discharge following myocardial infarction treated by thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 39(1):30–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller TD et al (1998) Usefulness of technetium-99 m sestamibi infarct size in predicting posthospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 81(12):1491–1493

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller TD et al (1995) Infarct size after acute myocardial infarction measured by quantitative tomographic 99mTc sestamibi imaging predicts subsequent mortality. Circulation 92(3):334–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schomig A et al (2000) Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. Stent versus thrombolysis for occluded coronary arteries in patients with acute myocardial infarction study investigators. N Engl J Med 343(6):385–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gersh BJ, Anderson JL (1993) Thrombolysis and myocardial salvage. Results of clinical trials and the animal paradigm–paradoxic or predictable? Circulation 88(1):296–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gibbons RJ et al (2004) The quantification of infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol 44(8):1533–1542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mehilli J et al (2005) Gender and myocardial salvage after reperfusion treatment in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 45(6):828–831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Canali E et al. (2012) Impact of gender differences on myocardial salvage and post-ischaemic left ventricular remodelling after primary coronary angioplasty: new insights from cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jes087

  14. Eitel I et al (2012) Sex differences in myocardial salvage and clinical outcome in patients with acute reperfused ST-elevation myocardial infarction: advances in cardiovascular imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 5(1):119–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Antman EM et al (2004) ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 110(9):e82–e292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Granger CB (2000) Strategies of patient care in acute coronary syndromes: rationale for the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) registry. Am J Cardiol 86(12B):4M–9M

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thiele H et al (2006) Reproducibility of chronic and acute infarct size measurement by delayed enhancement-magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 47(8):1641–1645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedrich MG et al (2008) The salvaged area at risk in reperfused acute myocardial infarction as visualized by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol 51(16):1581–1587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hadamitzky M et al. (2011) Prognostic value of microvascular obstruction assessed by contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in comparison to Tc99m-sestamibi SPECT in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 57(14 Suppl):e1062 182

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bondarenko O et al (2005) Standardizing the definition of hyperenhancement in the quantitative assessment of infarct size and myocardial viability using delayed contrast-enhanced CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 7(2):481–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Waha S et al (2010) Impact of early versus late microvascular obstruction assessed by magnetic resonance imaging on long-term outcome after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison with traditional prognostic markers. Eur Heart J 31(21):2660–2668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cochet AA et al (2009) Major prognostic impact of persistent microvascular obstruction as assessed by contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance in reperfused acute myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 19(9):2117–2126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. R-Development-Core-Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 17 Jan 2008]; Available from: http://www.R-project.org

  24. Harrell, F. Design: Design Package. 17 Jan 2008]; Available from: http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/s/Design

  25. Mehilli J et al (2000) Differences in prognostic factors and outcomes between women and men undergoing coronary artery stenting. JAMA 284(14):1799–1805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vaccarino V et al (2011) Ischaemic heart disease in women: are there sex differences in pathophysiology and risk factors? Position paper from the working group on coronary pathophysiology and microcirculation of the European Society of Cardiology. Cardiovasc Res 90(1):9–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cardiovascular disease in women–often silent and fatal. Lancet, 2011. 378(9787):200

  28. Kim RJ et al (2000) The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 343(20):1445–1453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lund GK et al (2004) Acute myocardial infarction: evaluation with first-pass enhancement and delayed enhancement MR imaging compared with 201Tl SPECT imaging. Radiology 232(1):49–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner A et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: an imaging study. Lancet 361(9355):374–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ibrahim T et al (2007) Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and single-photon emission computed tomography for detection of myocardial necrosis early after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 49(2):208–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shaw LJ et al (2008) Impact of ethnicity and gender differences on angiographic coronary artery disease prevalence and in-hospital mortality in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation 117(14):1787–1801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mehilli J et al (2002) Sex-based analysis of outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated predominantly with percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA 287(2):210–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dall’Armellina E et al (2011) Dynamic changes of edema and late gadolinium enhancement after acute myocardial infarction and their relationship to functional recovery and salvage index. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 4(3):228–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bekkers SC et al (2010) Microvascular obstruction: underlying pathophysiology and clinical diagnosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 55(16):1649–1660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kloner RA, Ganote CE, Jennings RB (1974) The “no-reflow” phenomenon after temporary coronary occlusion in the dog. J Clin Invest 54(6):1496–1508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Piper HM, Garcia-Dorado D, Ovize M (1998) A fresh look at reperfusion injury. Cardiovasc Res 38(2):291–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yellon DM, Hausenloy DJ (2007) Myocardial reperfusion injury. N Engl J Med 357(11):1121–1135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jovanovic S et al (2000) Low concentrations of 17beta-estradiol protect single cardiac cells against metabolic stress-induced Ca2+ loading. J Am Coll Cardiol 36(3):948–952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rossouw JE (2002) Hormones, genetic factors, and gender differences in cardiovascular disease. Cardiovasc Res 53(3):550–557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Knoferl MW et al (2000) Severe hypoxemia in the absence of blood loss causes a gender dimorphic immune response. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 279(6):C2004–C2010

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhao X, Eghbali-Webb M (2002) Gender-related differences in basal and hypoxia-induced activation of signal transduction pathways controlling cell cycle progression and apoptosis, in cardiac fibroblasts. Endocrine 18(2):137–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Virmani R, Forman MB, Kolodgie FD (1990) Myocardial reperfusion injury. Histopathological effects of perfluorochemical. Circulation 81(3 Suppl):IV57–IV68

    Google Scholar 

  44. Galiuto L et al (2000) Ischemia-reperfusion injury at the microvascular level: treatment by endothelin A-selective antagonist and evaluation by myocardial contrast echocardiography. Circulation 102(25):3111–3116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pearson LJ et al (2008) Regulation of endothelin-1 release from human endothelial cells by sex steroids and angiotensin-II. Peptides 29(6):1057–1061

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hombach V et al (2005) Sequelae of acute myocardial infarction regarding cardiac structure and function and their prognostic significance as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J 26(6):549–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wu KC et al (1998) Prognostic significance of microvascular obstruction by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 97(8):765–772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the medical and technical staff members of the magnetic resonance tomography laboratory for their invaluable contribution. This trial was supported in part by the research grant from “Förderverein des Deutschen Herzzentrums”, Munich, Germany. The authors have no financial relationships to disclose but discuss the off label use of Gadolinium in CMR.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich, Ziemssenstraße 1, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Birgit Langhans

  2. Klinik für Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Lazarettstraße 36, 80636, Munich, Germany

    Tareq Ibrahim, Jörg Hausleiter, Carolin Sonne & Albert Schömig

  3. Institut für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Lazarettstraße 36, 80636, Munich, Germany

    Stefan Martinoff & Martin Hadamitzky

Authors
  1. Birgit Langhans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tareq Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jörg Hausleiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carolin Sonne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefan Martinoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Albert Schömig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Hadamitzky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Hadamitzky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Langhans, B., Ibrahim, T., Hausleiter, J. et al. Gender differences in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging after acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29, 643–650 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0132-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0132-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation