The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reproducibility of Chronic Infarct Size Measurement by Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract
Background— The reproducibility of contrast-enhanced MRI has not been established. We compared MRI reproducibility for infarct size determination with that of 99m Tc-sestamibi (MIBI) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods and Results— Patients with chronic myocardial infarction defined by enzymes (peak creatine kinase-MB 173±119 U/L) were scanned twice by MRI (MRI I and MRI II, n=20) and twice by SPECT (SPECT I and SPECT II, n=15) on the same day. The MRI contrast agent was injected during MRI I but not MRI II to test the effect of imaging time after contrast. Resting Tc-MIBI SPECT images were acquired and infarct size was determined with commercial software. Infarct size in patients scanned by MRI and SPECT was 14±6% of left ventricular mass (%LV) by MRI (range 4%LV to 27%LV) and 14±7%LV by SPECT (range 4%LV to 26%LV). MRI I and II scans were performed 10±2 and 27±3 minutes after contrast, respectively. For MRI, the difference in infarct size between scans I and II (bias) was −0.1%LV, and the coefficient of repeatability was ±2.4%LV. For SPECT, bias was −1.3%LV, and the coefficient of repeatability was ±4.0%LV. Within individual patients, no systematic differences in infarct size were detected when the 2 MRI scans were compared, the 2 SPECT scans were compared, or MRI was compared to SPECT. Conclusion— The size of healed infarcts measured by contrast-enhanced MRI does not change between 10 and 30 minutes after contrast. The clinical reproducibility of contrast-enhanced MRI for infarct size determination compares favorably with that of routine clinical SPECT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Antman, E. M., Anbe, D. T., Armstrong, P. W., Bates, E. R., Green, L. A., Hand, M., Hochman, J. S., Krumholz, H. M., Kushner, F. G., Lamas, G. A., et al. (2004) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.002 · Cited by 1,020
Meyer, G. P., Wollert, K. C., Lotz, J., Steffens, J., Lippolt, P., Fichtner, S., Hecker, H., Schaefer, A., Arseniev, L., Hertenstein, B., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.575118 · Cited by 991
Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): Consensus Panel report?
PENNELL, D. (2004) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.040 · Cited by 747
Amado, L. C., Gerber, B. L., Gupta, S. N., Rettmann, D. W., Szarf, G., Schock, R., Nasir, K., Kraitchman, D. L., & Lima, J. A. C. (2004) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.020 · Cited by 508
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Clinically Suspected Cardiac Amyloidosis
Vogelsberg, H., Mahrholdt, H., Deluigi, C. C., Yilmaz, A., Kispert, E. M., Greulich, S., Klingel, K., Kandolf, R., & Sechtem, U. (2008) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.049 · Cited by 444
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mahrholdt, H., Wagner, A., Holly, T. A., Elliott, M. D., Bonow, R. O., Kim, R. J., & Judd, R. M.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2002-10-29
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 2322-2327
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2152404092
- Cited by
- 411
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reproducibility of Chronic Infarct Size Measurement by Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.0000036368.63317.1c
- The paper
- Mahrholdt, H., Wagner, A., Holly, T. A., Elliott, M. D., Bonow, R. O., Kim, R. J., & Judd, R. M. (2002). Reproducibility of Chronic Infarct Size Measurement by Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000036368.63317.1c
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.