Skip to main content

Table 3 Myocardium at risk by method used and angiographic characteristics

From: Quantification of myocardium at risk in ST- elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance with coronary angiographic jeopardy scores

Variables CMR BARI APPROACH
Total MaR 30 (7.7- 56.9) 28.5 (12-50) 28.0 (12-48)
Infarct related artery
 LAD 42 (32-49) 41 (33-46) 44 (30-47)
 LCx 40 (35-46) 34 (32-37) 30 (28-40)
 RCA 26 (22-32) 27 (22-29) 28 (24-28)
Disease pattern
 One-vessel disease 31 (25-44) 29 (27-40) 28 (27-44)
 Two-vessel disease 31 (25-39) 30 (25-34) 28 (28-28)
 Three-vessel disease 24 (22-32) 22 (22-26) 24 (22-28)
 Collateral flow grade 0 31 (24-43) 30 (25-39) 28 (27-44)
 Collateral flow grade 1 31 (27-39) 28 (27-36) 28 (27-29)
 Collateral flow grade 2 or 3 21 (7-26) 27 (22-29) 28 (22-28)
  1. Data on percentage myocardium at risk are presented as median and interquartile range (in brackets). There were no significant differences between the methods according to infarct-related artery or underlying coronary disease pattern. LAD left anterior descending coronary artery, RCA right coronary artery, LCx left circumflex coronary artery, CMR cardiac magnetic resonance, MaR myocardium at risk. There were no statistically significant differences between the MaR and collateralization for each of the angiographic techniques and CMR. Friedman test p = 0.157 and 0.06 respectively for collaterals 0 vs 2 and 3