MRI Assessment of Acute Pathologic Process after Myocardial Infarction: Role of Magnetic Nanoparticle-based MRI
Cheongsoo Park1,2, Eun-Hye Park3, Jongeun Kang1,4, Kiyuk Chang3, and Kwan Soo Hong1,4,5

1Korea Basic Science Institute, Cheongju, Korea, Republic of, 2The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 3Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital and College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 4Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea, Republic of, 5University of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea, Republic of

Synopsis

Myocardial infarction (MI) is the major cause of sudden death in most industrialized society. Imaging of early disease progression and investigation of relationship between myocardial necrosis and successive inflammatory response are needed for optimal treatment of MI. We conducted cardiac MR imaging of disease progression in acute MI by using three different MRI methods of Gd (LGE), Mn (ME), and iron oxide nanoparticles (MNP)-based MRI for estimation of infarcted and inflammatory regions.

Purpose

To assess the relationship between necrosis and its inflammatory response in acute MI using cardiac MRI.

Methods

MI was induced by permanent ligation of the left anterior descending artery in C57BL/6 mice (n = 22). LGE (Omniscan, 0.3 mmol/kg), MEMRI (MnCl2, 0.2 mmol/kg), and MNP-MRI (5 and 10 mg/kg) were performed on 1, 2, and 3 days after MI induction, respectively. MR imaging parameters were as follows; slice thickness = 1 mm, field of view = 3×3 cm2, matrix size = 256×256, TR/TE = 73/2.7 ms, flip angle = 60°, TR/TE = R-R interval/6 ms, flip angle = 30° for MNP-MRI (24 hours delay). After all MRI examination, the hearts were extracted for histopathology. Consecutive heart tissue sections (~5 μm) were stained with H&E and immunohistochemistry (anti-myosin antibody for necrosis and anti-CD68 antibody for macrophages). Enhanced (or contrast) size on MR images was analyzed by area- and sector-based approaches by using Segment (Medviso) and ImageJ (NIH). To prevent observer bias, enhanced size was calculated by Otsu’s thresholding method.

Results

Representative images are presented in Figure 1. Inflammatory area by MNP-MRI was higher than infarcted areas by LGE and MEMRI (Figure 2). Measured contrast sizes of LGE, MEMRI, and MNP-MRI were 40.5±11.5%, 46.5±14.1%, and 58.6±10.6% in area-based method (Figure 2A), and 45.2±15.0%, 45.8±16.9%, and 58.7±14.2% (Figure 2B), respectively. Infarcted and inflammatory regions in MR images were consistent with H&E stain and immunohistochemistry.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our study is the first to use the three different MRI methods for imaging necrosis and inflammation in the same animals during acute MI phase. Cellular inflammatory response was strongly correlated with myocardial damage and associated with poor functional outcome after MI.1 Deftereos et al. presented that the infarct size on LGE was well correlated with CK-MB (necrosis) and neutrophil (inflammation).2 Further studies are necessary in order to better understand the underlying mechanism of the disease progression in the acute MI. Therefore it is important to develop the cellular and molecular imaging techniques to examine the myocardial necrosis and the consequent inflammatory response.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1. van der Laan AM, Hirsch A, Robbers LF, et al. A proinflammatory monocyte response is associated with myocardial injury and impaired functional outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: monocytes and myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2012;163:57–65. 2. Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Angelidis C, et al. Anti-Inflammatory Treatment With Colchicine in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Pilot Study. Circulation 2015;132(15):1395-403.

Figures

Figure 1. MR images of MI mouse model. LGE, MEMRI, and MNP-MR images from upper row (left column), ROIs obtained from Otsu’s threshold (middle column), and the calculated threshold values (dotted lines) and sizes (numerals) of necrotic and inflammatory regions from the corresponding histograms (right column).

Figure 2. Comparison of contrasted sizes of MI mice by different MRI methods. The sizes were evaluated by area-based (A) and sector-based (B) approaches. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001; ****, p < 0.0001; ns, non-significant.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
3711