| Literature DB >> 19756815 |
Michael Jeserich1, Stavros Konstantinides, Gabor Pavlik, Christoph Bode, Annette Geibel.
Abstract
Autopsy series of consecutive cases have demonstrated an incidence of myocarditis at approximately 1-10%; on the contrary, myocarditis is seriously underdiagnosed clinically. In a traditional view, the gold standard has been myocardial biopsy. However, it is generally specific but invasive and less sensitive, mostly because of the focal nature of the disease. Thus, non-invasive approaches to detect myocarditis are necessary. The traditional diagnostic tools are electrocardiography, laboratory values, especially troponin T or I, creatine kinase and echocardiography. For a long period, nuclear technique with indium-111 antimyosin antibody has been used as a diagnostic approach. In the last years, the use of this technique has declined because of radiation exposure and 48-h delay in obtaining imaging after injection to prevent blood pool effect. Thus, a non-invasive diagnostic approach without radiation and online image availability has been awaited. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging has these promising characteristics. With this technique, it is possible to analyse inflammation, oedema and necrosis in addition to functional parameters such as left ventricular function, regional wall motion and dimensions. Thus, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as the most important imaging tool in the diagnostic procedure and the review focus on this field. But there are also advances in echocardiography and computer tomography, which are described in detail.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19756815 PMCID: PMC2789929 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-009-0069-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Res Cardiol ISSN: 1861-0684 Impact factor: 5.460
Fig. 1Cardiovascular magnetic resonance image. Short-axis image of a 54-year-old female patient with acute myocarditis. T2-weighted image showing oedema of the septum, inferior and lateral wall (arrow). The patient had biopsy-proven myocarditis of isolated parvovirus B19 infection. LV Left ventricle. RV right ventricle
Fig. 2Short-axis T2-weighted image of a control. There is a homogeneous signal of the myocardium. LV Left ventricle. RV right ventricle
Fig. 3Delayed enhancement imaging of a 50-year-old male patient with a chronic myocardial infarction. Short-axis view. There is a transmural scar of the inferoseptal wall (arrow). LV Left ventricle. RV right ventricle
Fig. 4Delayed enhancement imaging of a 42-year-old male patient with viral myocarditis, exertional dyspnoe after a gastrointestinal infect. Short-axis view demonstrating a small enhanced mid-wall signal intensity of the left ventricular septum (arrow). LV Left ventricle. RV right ventricle
Fig. 5Delayed enhancement imaging of a 61-year-old male patient with viral myocarditis, fatigue and frequent ventricular premature beats after a respiratory infect. Four-chamber view demonstrating enhanced mid-wall signal intensity of the left ventricular septal myocardium (arrow). LV Left ventricle. RV right ventricle. LA Left atrium. RA right atrium
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in comparison to biopsy-confirmed cases
| Literature | Number of pts | Myocardial oedema present | Late enhancement present | Biopsy-proven active myocarditis | Accuracy in regions of late enhancement | Accuracy in regions without late enhancement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gagliardi et al. [ | 11 | 6a | n.p. | 6 | n.p. | n.p. |
| Friedrich et al. [ | 19 | 16 (84%) | n.p. | 4/7 (57%) | n.p. | n.p. |
| Roditi et al. [ | 20 | 12b | n.p. | 4 | 100% | n.r. |
| Mahrholdt et al. [ | 32 | n.r. | 28 (88%) | 20 (62.5%) | 19/21 (90%) | 1/11 (9%) |
| De Cobelli et al. [ | 23 | 5 (22%)c | 16 (70%) | 14 (61%) | 12/14 (86%) | n.r. |
| Mahrholdt et al. [ | 128 | n.r. | 83 (95%) | 87 | n.r. | n.r. |
| Gutberlet et al. [ | 83 | 72%d and 68%e | n.r. | 49/83 (59%) | 49%f | 49%f |
n.r. Not reported, n.p. not performed
aT2 spin echo
bT1-weighted images before and after contrast agent administration
cT2-fat saturated black blood image
dT1-weighted imaging before and after contrast agent administration
eT2-weighted triple inversion recovery imaging to calculate the oedema ratio
fDifference not reported