Volume 13 Supplement 1

Abstracts of the 2011 SCMR/Euro CMR Joint Scientific Sessions

Open Access

Predictive accuracy of semi-quantitative scoring to screen for unfavorable ejection fraction and infarct size

  • Lara Bakhos1,
  • Maria M Izquierdo-Gomez1,
  • Daniel C Lee1 and
  • Edwin Wu1
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201113(Suppl 1):P44

DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-13-S1-P44

Published: 2 February 2011


Manual planimetry for quantitative analysis of ejection fraction (EF) and infarct size (IS) on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are too time-consuming, and therefore, impractical in daily clinical practice. We sought to derive and examine the predictive accuracy of a semi-quantitative scoring technique to screen patients with an EF ≤35% or an IS ≥18.5%, known independent predictors of increased cardiac events and mortality.


The CMR derivation cohort consisted of 122 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The validation cohort consisted of an additional 172 patients from the multi-center DEfibrillators To REduce Risk by MagnetIc ResoNance Imaging Evaluation (DETERMINE) trial. Cines were scored on a 17-segment model for wall motion and totaled for the Sum Motion Score (SMS): 0 = normal, 1 = mild hypokinesis, 2 = moderate to severe hypokinesis, 3 = akinesis, 4 = dyskinesis. Viability images were scored for infarct transmurality and totaled for the Sum Infarct Score (SIS): 0 = none, 1 = 1-25%, 2 = 26-50%, 3 = 51-75%, 4 = 76-100%. Quantitative EF and IS were manually planimetered using QMass (Medis).


From the derivation cohort, the SMS correlated with EF (R=-0.91, p<0.001) and SIS correlated with IS (R=0.94, p<0.001). Linear regression equations between SMS vs. EF and SIS vs. IS were obtained to estimate EF (est-EF = 55 - SMS) and IS (est-IS = 1.383 * SIS).

In the validation cohort, the mean EF was 39.0 ± 11.7% (32% with EF ≤35%), and the mean IS was 17.3 ± 10.4% (40% with IS ≤18.5%). Using the derivation formula, the est-EF (36.2 ± 10.9%) correlated with EF (R = 0.9) with a slight underestimation of the mean difference by 2.8 ± 4.9%. In addition, the est-IS (21.8 ± 12.8%) correlated with IS (R = 0.9). The est-IS tended to overestimate IS by 4.5 ± 5.9%. The sensitivity for detecting an EF ≤35% using the est-EF was 94% with a negative predictive value of 97%. The sensitivity for detecting an IS ≥18.5% using the est-IS was 96% with a negative predictive value of 96%.


Semi-quantitative scoring is a sensitive screening tool that can be used to identify patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% or infarct size ≥18.5% to provide a rapid alternative method to manual planimetry.

Authors’ Affiliations

Northwestern University


© Bakhos et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.