Tim Luijkx1, Maarten J Cramer2, Constantinus F Buckens3, Abbas Zaidi4, Rienk Rienks5, Arend Mosterd6, Niek Hj Prakken1, Barbara Dijkman2, Willem P Th M Mali1, Birgitta K Velthuis1. 1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, St George's, University of London, London, UK. 5. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Department of Cardiology, Central Military Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Department of Cardiology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differentiating physiological left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in athletes from pathological hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) can be challenging. This study assesses the ability of cardiac MRI (CMR) to distinguish between physiological LVH (so-called athlete's heart) and HCM. METHODS: 45 patients with HCM (71% men and 20% athletic) and 734 healthy control participants (60% men and 75% athletic) underwent CMR. Quantitative ventricular parameters were used for multivariate logistic regression with age, gender, sport status and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV) to ED ventricular wall mass (EDM) ratio as covariates. A second model added the LV EDV : right ventricular (RV) EDV ratio. The performance of the model was subsequently tested. RESULTS: LV EDM was greater in patients with HCM (74 g/m2) compared with healthy athletes/non-athletes (53/41 g/m2), while LV EDV was largest in athletes (114 ml/m2) as compared with non-athletes (94 ml/m2) and patients with HCM (88 ml/m2). The LV EDV : EDM ratio was significantly lower in patients with HCM compared with healthy controls and athletes (1.30/2.39/2.25, p<0.05). The LV EDV : RV EDV ratio was significantly greater in patients with HCM (1.10) than in healthy participants (non-athletes/athletes 0.94/0.93). The regression model resulted in high sensitivity and specificity levels in all and borderline-LVH participants (as defined by septal wall thickness). Corresponding areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.995 (all participants) and 0.992 (borderline-LVH participants only). Adding the LV EDV : RV EDV ratio yielded no additional improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A model incorporating the LV EDV : EDM ratio can help distinguish HCM from physiological hypertrophy in athletes. This also applies to cases with borderline LVH, which present the greatest diagnostic challenge in clinical practice. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Differentiating physiological left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in athletes from pathological hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) can be challenging. This study assesses the ability of cardiac MRI (CMR) to distinguish between physiological LVH (so-called athlete's heart) and HCM. METHODS: 45 patients with HCM (71% men and 20% athletic) and 734 healthy control participants (60% men and 75% athletic) underwent CMR. Quantitative ventricular parameters were used for multivariate logistic regression with age, gender, sport status and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV) to ED ventricular wall mass (EDM) ratio as covariates. A second model added the LV EDV : right ventricular (RV) EDV ratio. The performance of the model was subsequently tested. RESULTS:LV EDM was greater in patients with HCM (74 g/m2) compared with healthy athletes/non-athletes (53/41 g/m2), while LV EDV was largest in athletes (114 ml/m2) as compared with non-athletes (94 ml/m2) and patients with HCM (88 ml/m2). The LV EDV : EDM ratio was significantly lower in patients with HCM compared with healthy controls and athletes (1.30/2.39/2.25, p<0.05). The LV EDV : RV EDV ratio was significantly greater in patients with HCM (1.10) than in healthy participants (non-athletes/athletes 0.94/0.93). The regression model resulted in high sensitivity and specificity levels in all and borderline-LVH participants (as defined by septal wall thickness). Corresponding areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.995 (all participants) and 0.992 (borderline-LVH participants only). Adding the LV EDV : RV EDV ratio yielded no additional improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A model incorporating the LV EDV : EDM ratio can help distinguish HCM from physiological hypertrophy in athletes. This also applies to cases with borderline LVH, which present the greatest diagnostic challenge in clinical practice. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Victor Utomi; David Oxborough; Euan Ashley; Rachel Lord; Sarah Fletcher; Mike Stembridge; Rob Shave; Martin D Hoffman; Greg Whyte; John Somauroo; Sanjay Sharma; Keith George Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Csilla Czimbalmos; Ibolya Csecs; Attila Toth; Orsolya Kiss; Ferenc Imre Suhai; Nora Sydo; Zsofia Dohy; Astrid Apor; Bela Merkely; Hajnalka Vago Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Radu Ovidiu Rosu; Ana Lupsor; Alexandru Necula; Gabriel Cismaru; Simona Sorana Cainap; Daniela Iacob; Cecilia Lazea; Andrei Cismaru; Alina Gabriela Negru; Dana Pop; Gabriel Gusetu Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-14