BACKGROUND: Ischemia and tissue injury are common in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging offers combined evaluations of each phenomenon at sufficiently high resolution to examine transmural spatial distribution. In this prospective cohort study, we examine the spatial distribution of stress perfusion abnormalities and tissue injury in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Cine, stress perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement, and T2-weighted imaging techniques were used. Each was spatially coregistered according to predefined segmental and subsegmental models and was blindly analyzed for abnormalities using validated techniques. Spatial associations among stress perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement, and T2 imaging were made at segmental and subsegmental levels. Of the 100 patients studied, the phenotype was septal in 86 and apical in 14. Late gadolinium enhancement imaging was abnormal in 79 patients (79%). Eighty-six patients met prespecified safety criteria to undergo stress perfusion, and ischemia was identified in 46 patients (57%). T2 imaging was available in 81 patients and was abnormal in 19 (29%). The dominant distribution of all 3 findings was to segment with hypertrophy. Subsegmental analysis revealed geographic dominance of ischemia within the subendocardial zones. However, this zone was most commonly spared from late gadolinium enhancement and T2 abnormalities, typically seen in midwall and subepicardial zones. CONCLUSIONS: Inducible hypoperfusion is a common finding in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and is typically identified within segments exhibiting imaging markers of tissue injury. However, the respective transmural dominance of these phenomena seems distinct. Alternate factors contributing to a regional susceptibility to tissue injury are deserving of further study.
BACKGROUND:Ischemia and tissue injury are common in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging offers combined evaluations of each phenomenon at sufficiently high resolution to examine transmural spatial distribution. In this prospective cohort study, we examine the spatial distribution of stress perfusion abnormalities and tissue injury in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Cine, stress perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement, and T2-weighted imaging techniques were used. Each was spatially coregistered according to predefined segmental and subsegmental models and was blindly analyzed for abnormalities using validated techniques. Spatial associations among stress perfusion, late gadolinium enhancement, and T2 imaging were made at segmental and subsegmental levels. Of the 100 patients studied, the phenotype was septal in 86 and apical in 14. Late gadolinium enhancement imaging was abnormal in 79 patients (79%). Eighty-six patients met prespecified safety criteria to undergo stress perfusion, and ischemia was identified in 46 patients (57%). T2 imaging was available in 81 patients and was abnormal in 19 (29%). The dominant distribution of all 3 findings was to segment with hypertrophy. Subsegmental analysis revealed geographic dominance of ischemia within the subendocardial zones. However, this zone was most commonly spared from late gadolinium enhancement and T2 abnormalities, typically seen in midwall and subepicardial zones. CONCLUSIONS: Inducible hypoperfusion is a common finding in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and is typically identified within segments exhibiting imaging markers of tissue injury. However, the respective transmural dominance of these phenomena seems distinct. Alternate factors contributing to a regional susceptibility to tissue injury are deserving of further study.
Authors: Alessandro Satriano; Bobak Heydari; Namrata Guron; Kate Fenwick; Matthew Cheung; Yoko Mikami; Naeem Merchant; Carmen P Lydell; Andrew G Howarth; Nowell M Fine; James A White Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Louise E J Thomson; Janet Wei; Megha Agarwal; Afsaneh Haft-Baradaran; Chrisandra Shufelt; Puja K Mehta; Edward B Gill; B Delia Johnson; Tanya Kenkre; Eileen M Handberg; Debiao Li; Behzad Sharif; Daniel S Berman; John W Petersen; Carl J Pepine; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Robert Jablonowski; Eva Fernlund; Anthony H Aletras; Henrik Engblom; Einar Heiberg; Petru Liuba; Håkan Arheden; Marcus Carlsson Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: D H Frank Gommans; G Etienne Cramer; Jeannette Bakker; Hendrik-Jan Dieker; Michelle Michels; Michael A Fouraux; Carlo L M Marcelis; Freek W A Verheugt; Janneke Timmermans; Marc A Brouwer; Marcel J M Kofflard Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: G Etienne Cramer; D H Frank Gommans; Hendrik-Jan Dieker; Michelle Michels; Freek Verheugt; Menko-Jan de Boer; Jeannette Bakker; Michael A Fouraux; Janneke Timmermans; Marcel Kofflard; Marc Brouwer Journal: Heart Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Tevfik F Ismail; Li-Yueh Hsu; Anders M Greve; Carla Gonçalves; Andrew Jabbour; Ankur Gulati; Benjamin Hewins; Niraj Mistry; Ricardo Wage; Michael Roughton; Pedro F Ferreira; Peter Gatehouse; David Firmin; Rory O'Hanlon; Dudley J Pennell; Sanjay K Prasad; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 5.364