Literature DB >> 18687251

Assessment and significance of left ventricular mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Iacopo Olivotto1, Martin S Maron, Camillo Autore, John R Lesser, Luigi Rega, Giancarlo Casolo, Marcello De Santis, Giovanni Quarta, Stefano Nistri, Franco Cecchi, Carol J Salton, James E Udelson, Warren J Manning, Barry J Maron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the distribution and clinical significance of left ventricular (LV) mass in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is defined echocardiographically by unexplained left ventricular wall thickening. Left ventricular mass, quantifiable by modern cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques, has not been systematically assessed in this disease.
METHODS: In 264 HCM patients (age 43 +/- 18 years; 75% men), LV mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance was measured, indexed by body surface area, and compared with that in 606 healthy control subjects.
RESULTS: The LV mass index in HCM patients significantly exceeded that of control subjects (104 +/- 40 g/m(2) vs. 61 +/- 10 g/m(2) in men and 89 +/- 33 g/m(2) vs. 47 +/- 7 g/m(2) in women; both p < 0.0001). However, values were within the normal range (< or = mean +2 SDs for control subjects) in 56 patients (21%), and only mildly increased (mean +2 to 3 SDs) in 18 (16%). The LV mass index showed a modest relationship to maximal LV thickness (r(2) = 0.38; p < 0.001), and was greater in men (104 +/- 40 g/m(2) vs. 89 +/- 33 g/m(2) in women; p < 0.001) and in patients with resting outflow obstruction (121 +/- 43 g/m(2) vs. 96 +/- 37 g/m(2) in nonobstructives; p < 0.001). During a 2.6 +/- 0.7-year follow-up, markedly increased LV mass index proved more sensitive in predicting outcome (100%, with 39% specificity), whereas maximal wall thickness >30 mm was more specific (90%, with 41% sensitivity).
CONCLUSIONS: In distinction to prior perceptions, LV mass index was normal in about 20% of patients with definite HCM phenotype. Therefore, increased LV mass is not a requirement for establishing the clinical diagnosis of HCM. The LV mass correlated weakly with maximal wall thickness, and proved more sensitive in predicting outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18687251     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.04.047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  89 in total

Review 1.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Edward T D Hoey; Mohamed Elassaly; Arul Ganeshan; Richard W Watkin; Helen Simpson
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2014-10

2.  Cardiac MRI assessed left ventricular hypertrophy in differentiating hypertensive heart disease from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy attributable to a sarcomeric gene mutation.

Authors:  Petri Sipola; Jarkko Magga; Minna Husso; Pertti Jääskeläinen; Keijo Peuhkurinen; Johanna Kuusisto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  MRI classification of asymmetric septal hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and its relation to the presence of risk factors.

Authors:  Yasuo Amano; Mitsunobu Kitamura; Morimasa Takayama; Masaki Tachi; Shinichiro Kumita
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-03-04       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 4.  Multi-modality imaging of diastolic function.

Authors:  Michael Salerno
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Developmental origins of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy phenotypes: a unifying hypothesis.

Authors:  Iacopo Olivotto; Franco Cecchi; Corrado Poggesi; Magdi H Yacoub
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 32.419

6.  Facts and ideas from anywhere.

Authors:  William C Roberts
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2009-01

7.  Impact of the papillary muscles on cardiac magnetic resonance image analysis of important left ventricular parameters in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  D H F Gommans; J Bakker; G E Cramer; F W A Verheugt; M A Brouwer; M J M Kofflard
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.380

8.  2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.

Authors:  Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance: the future looks bright.

Authors:  Michael Salerno; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-07-02       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 10.  Echocardiography in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: usefulness of old and new techniques in the diagnosis and pathophysiological assessment.

Authors:  Maria-Angela Losi; Stefano Nistri; Maurizio Galderisi; Sandro Betocchi; Franco Cecchi; Iacopo Olivotto; Eustachio Agricola; Piercarlo Ballo; Simona Buralli; Antonello D'Andrea; Arcangelo D'Errico; Donato Mele; Susanna Sciomer; Sergio Mondillo
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 2.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.