Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Prognostic value of echocardiography after acute myocardial infarction
  1. S A Mollema,
  2. G Nucifora,
  3. J J Bax
  1. Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr J J Bax, Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands; j.j.bax{at}


Echocardiography is useful for risk stratification and assessment of prognosis after myocardial infarction, which is the focus of this review. Various traditional echocardiographic parameters have been shown to provide prognostic information, such as left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction, wall motion score index, mitral regurgitation and left atrial volume. The introduction of tissue Doppler imaging and speckle-tracking strain imaging has resulted in additional prognostic parameters, such as left ventricular strain (rate) and dyssynchrony. Also, (myocardial) contrast echocardiography provides valuable information, particularly about myocardial perfusion (as a marker of myocardial viability), which is strongly related to prognosis after myocardial infarction. Stress echocardiography provides information on ischaemia and viability, coronary flow reserve can be obtained by Doppler imaging of the coronary arteries, and finally, three-dimensional echocardiography provides optimal information on left ventricular volumes, function and sphericity, which are also important for long-term outcome.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding This study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from St Jude Medical. GN was supported by a grant from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. JJB receives research grants from GE Healthcare, BMS, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St Jude and Edwards Lifesciences.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.