OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) compared with endomyocardial biopsy in patients with suspected acute myocarditis (AMC) and chronic myocarditis (CMC). BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported an encouraging diagnostic performance of CMR in myocarditis. However, the comparison of CMR with clinical data only and the use of preselected patient populations are important limitations of the majority of these reports. METHODS: One hundred thirty-two consecutive patients with suspected AMC (defined by symptoms ≤ 14 days; n = 70) and CMC (defined by symptoms >14 days; n = 62) were included. Patients underwent cardiac catheterization with left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy and CMR, including T(2)-weighted imaging for assessment of edema, T(1)-weighted imaging before and after contrast administration for evaluation of hyperemia, and assessment of late gadolinium enhancement. CMR results were considered to be consistent with the diagnosis of myocarditis if 2 of 3 CMR techniques were positive. RESULTS: Within the total population, myocarditis was the most common diagnosis on endomyocardial biopsy analysis (62.9%). Viral genomes were detected in 30.3% (40 of 132) of patients within the total patient population and significantly more often in patients with AMC than CMC (40.0% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.013). For the overall cohort of patients with either suspected AMC or CMC, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CMR were 76%, 54%, and 68%, respectively. The best diagnostic performance was observed in patients with suspected AMC (sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 71%; and accuracy, 79%). In contrast, diagnostic performance of CMR in suspected CMC was found to be unsatisfactory (sensitivity, 63%; specificity, 40%; and accuracy, 52%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study underline the usefulness of CMR in patients with suspected AMC. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of CMR in patients with suspected CMC might not be sufficient to guide clinical management.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) compared with endomyocardial biopsy in patients with suspected acute myocarditis (AMC) and chronic myocarditis (CMC). BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported an encouraging diagnostic performance of CMR in myocarditis. However, the comparison of CMR with clinical data only and the use of preselected patient populations are important limitations of the majority of these reports. METHODS: One hundred thirty-two consecutive patients with suspected AMC (defined by symptoms ≤ 14 days; n = 70) and CMC (defined by symptoms >14 days; n = 62) were included. Patients underwent cardiac catheterization with left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy and CMR, including T(2)-weighted imaging for assessment of edema, T(1)-weighted imaging before and after contrast administration for evaluation of hyperemia, and assessment of late gadolinium enhancement. CMR results were considered to be consistent with the diagnosis of myocarditis if 2 of 3 CMR techniques were positive. RESULTS: Within the total population, myocarditis was the most common diagnosis on endomyocardial biopsy analysis (62.9%). Viral genomes were detected in 30.3% (40 of 132) of patients within the total patient population and significantly more often in patients with AMC than CMC (40.0% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.013). For the overall cohort of patients with either suspected AMC or CMC, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CMR were 76%, 54%, and 68%, respectively. The best diagnostic performance was observed in patients with suspected AMC (sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 71%; and accuracy, 79%). In contrast, diagnostic performance of CMR in suspected CMC was found to be unsatisfactory (sensitivity, 63%; specificity, 40%; and accuracy, 52%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study underline the usefulness of CMR in patients with suspected AMC. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of CMR in patients with suspected CMC might not be sufficient to guide clinical management.
Authors: Anca Florian; Tim Schäufele; Anna Ludwig; Sabine Rösch; Ina Wenzelburger; Handan Yildiz; Udo Sechtem; Ali Yilmaz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Katarzyna Michaud; Silke Grabherr; Christian Jackowski; Marc Daniel Bollmann; Franceso Doenz; Patrice Mangin Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: M Gutberlet; C Lücke; C Krieghoff; L Hildebrand; P Lurz; J Steiner; J Adam; I Eitel; H Thiele; M Grothoff; M Grotthoff; L Lehmkuhl Journal: Radiologe Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 0.635