Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 18, 2025
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for the Evaluation of Suspected Cardiac Thrombus: Conventional and Emerging Techniques
Published on: June 11, 2019
Quantification of myocardial hemorrhage using T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 1.5T with ex-vivo validation
Yinyin Chen1,2,3, Daoyuan Ren4, Xingmin Guan1,5
1Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Dept of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Suite 400, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Background:
T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is commonly used in the diagnosis of intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH). For quantifying IMH with T2* CMR, despite the lack of consensus studies, two different methods [subject-specific T2* (ssT2*) and absolute T2* thresholding (aT2* < 20 ms)] are interchangeably used. We examined whether these approaches yield equivalent information.
Methods:
ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients (n = 70) were prospectively recruited for CMR at 4-7 days post revascularization and for 6-month follow up (n = 43). Canines studies were performed for validation purposes, where animals (n = 20) were subject to reperfused myocardial infarction (MI) and those surviving the MI (n = 16) underwent CMR at 7 days and 8 weeks and then euthanized. Both in patients and animals, T2* of IMH and volume of IMH were determined using ssT2* and aT2* < 20 ms. In animals, ex-vivo T2* CMR and mass spectrometry for iron concentration ([Fe]Hemo) were determined on excised myocardial sections. T2* values based on ssT2* and absolute T2* threshold approaches were independently regressed against [Fe]Hemo and compared. A range of T2* cut-offs were tested to determine the optimized conditions relative to ssT2*.
Results:
While both approaches showed many similarities, there were also differences. Compared to ssT2*, aT2* < 20 ms showed lower T2* and volume of IMH in patients and animals independent of MI age (all p < 0.005). While T2* determined from both methods were highly correlated against [Fe]Hemo (R2 = 0.9 for both), the slope of the regression curve for ssT2* was significantly larger as compared to aT2* < 20 ms (0.46 vs. 0.32, p < 0.01). Further, slightly larger absolute T2* cut-offs (patients: 23 ms; animals: 25 ms) showed similar IMH characteristics compared to ssT2*.
Conclusion:
Current quantification methods have excellent capacity to identify IMH, albeit the T2*of IMH and volume of IMH based on aT2* < 20 ms are smaller compared to ssT2*. Thus the method used to quantify IMH from T2* CMR may influence the diagnosis for IMH.
