Discover the SciOpen Platform and Achieve Your Research Goals with Ease.
Search articles, authors, keywords, DOl and etc.
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a key role in assessing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and detecting myocardial edema. Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) has recently been applied to cardiac exploration and is perceived as a promising method for evaluating cardiomyopathies. This study aims to evaluate the role of DWI in the assessment of AMI by analyzing the accuracy of both low b‐value diffusion‐weighted (DW) spin‐echo (SE) echo‐planar imaging (EPI) sequence and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping in detecting ischemia‐induced myocardial edema.
This study included 13 patients with recent reperfused AMI who underwent cardiac MRI. A cardiac protocol was applied, including black blood T2‐weighted imaging (BB‐T2W), two low b‐value DW SE EPI (b = 20 s/mm2), one for low b‐value DW SE EPI in free‐breathing (DWF) and the other for low b‐value DW SE EPI in breath‐holding (DWH), T2 mapping, and ADC mapping. BB‐T2W, DWH, and DWF images were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The T2 and ADC values were measured within the infarct and remote myocardium. Statistical analysis was performed using a nonparametric Wilcoxon test.
ADC values in the infarct area were significantly higher than the remote myocardium ([2.36 ± 0.34] × 10−3 mm2/s and [1.20 ± 0.14] × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively; p = 0.001). Besides, low b‐value DW SE EPI (DWH and DWF) allowed the detection of ischemia‐induced myocardial edema in a way surpassing the BB‐T2W sequence with a higher sensitivity to edema (96.7%, 96.7%, and 87.9%, respectively). No statistically significant difference was noted between DWH and DWF sequences.
DWI may be a promising technique for the exploration of AMI, with the advantage of being feasible for dyspneic patients.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments on this article