Literature DB >> 24011774

T(1) mapping for the diagnosis of acute myocarditis using CMR: comparison to T2-weighted and late gadolinium enhanced imaging.

Vanessa M Ferreira1, Stefan K Piechnik1, Erica Dall'Armellina1, Theodoros D Karamitsos1, Jane M Francis1, Ntobeko Ntusi1, Cameron Holloway1, Robin P Choudhury1, Attila Kardos2, Matthew D Robson1, Matthias G Friedrich3, Stefan Neubauer4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to test the diagnostic performance of native T1 mapping in acute myocarditis compared with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) techniques such as dark-blood T2-weighted (T2W)-CMR, bright-blood T2W-CMR, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of acute myocarditis on CMR often requires multiple techniques, including T2W, early gadolinium enhancement, and LGE imaging. Novel techniques such as T1 mapping and bright-blood T2W-CMR are also sensitive to changes in free water content. We hypothesized that these techniques can serve as new and potentially superior diagnostic criteria for myocarditis.
METHODS: We investigated 50 patients with suspected acute myocarditis (age 42 ± 16 years; 22% women) and 45 controls (age 42 ± 14 years; 22% women). CMR at 1.5-T (median 3 days from presentation) included: 1) dark-blood T2W-CMR (short-tau inversion recovery); 2) bright-blood T2W-CMR (acquisition for cardiac unified T2 edema); 3) native T1 mapping (shortened modified look-locker inversion recovery); and 4) LGE. Image analysis included: 1) global T2 signal intensity ratio of myocardium compared with skeletal muscle; 2) myocardial T1 relaxation times; and 3) areas of LGE.
RESULTS: Compared with controls, patients had significantly higher global T2 signal intensity ratios by dark-blood T2W-CMR (1.73 ± 0.27 vs. 1.56 ± 0.15, p < 0.01), bright-blood T2W-CMR (2.02 ± 0.33 vs. 1.84 ± 0.17, p < 0.01), and mean myocardial T1 (1,010 ± 65 ms vs. 941 ± 18 ms, p < 0.01). Receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed clear differences in diagnostic performance. The areas under the curve for each method were: T1 mapping (0.95), LGE (0.96), dark-blood T2 (0.78), and bright-blood T2 (0.76). A T1 cutoff of 990 ms had a sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of 90%, 91%, and 91%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Native T1 mapping as a novel criterion for the detection of acute myocarditis showed excellent and superior diagnostic performance compared with T2W-CMR. It also has a higher sensitivity compared with T2W and LGE techniques, which may be especially useful in detecting subtle focal disease and when gadolinium contrast imaging is not feasible.
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUC; CMR; EGE; EMB; LGE; PPV; ROC; SI; STIR; ShMOLLI; T(1) mapping; T(2)-weighted; T(2)-weighted CMR; T2W; area under the curve; cardiac magnetic resonance; early gadolinium enhancement; endomyocardial biopsy; late gadolinium enhancement; myocarditis; positive predictive value; receiver-operating characteristic; short-tau inversion recovery; shortened modified look-locker inversion recovery; signal intensity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24011774     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.03.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1876-7591


  130 in total

Review 1.  Left ventricular hypertrophy: The relationship between the electrocardiogram and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ljuba Bacharova; Martin Ugander
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 2.  Gadolinium-based contrast agents in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Eric M Gale; Peter Caravan; Anil G Rao; Robert J McDonald; Matthew Winfeld; Robert J Fleck; Michael S Gee
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-04-13

Review 3.  Noninvasive cardiac imaging in suspected acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Pankaj Garg; S Richard Underwood; Roxy Senior; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 32.419

4.  The case for CMR.

Authors:  Peter W Shaw; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Distribution of late gadolinium enhancement in various types of cardiomyopathies: Significance in differential diagnosis, clinical features and prognosis.

Authors:  Hiroshi Satoh; Makoto Sano; Kenichiro Suwa; Takeji Saitoh; Mamoru Nobuhara; Masao Saotome; Tsuyoshi Urushida; Hideki Katoh; Hideharu Hayashi
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2014-07-26

Review 6.  Role of Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis, Prognosis and Management of Heart Failure Patients: Cardiac Magnetic Resonance.

Authors:  Jorge A Gonzalez; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2015-08

7.  Myocardial T1 and T2 mapping in diastolic and systolic phase.

Authors:  Carlo Tessa; Stefano Diciotti; Nicholas Landini; Alessio Lilli; Jacopo Del Meglio; Luca Salvatori; Marco Giannelli; Andreas Greiser; Claudio Vignali; Giancarlo Casolo
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Predictors of subclinical systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement characterised by microvasculopathy and myocardial fibrosis.

Authors:  Raluca B Dumitru; Lesley-Anne Bissell; Bara Erhayiem; Graham Fent; Ananth Kidambi; Peter Swoboda; Giuseppina Abignano; Helena Donica; Agata Burska; John P Greenwood; John Biglands; Francesco Del Galdo; Sven Plein; Maya H Buch
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 7.580

Review 9.  Diagnostic and prognostic role of cardiac magnetic resonance in acute myocarditis.

Authors:  Chrysanthos Grigoratos; Gianluca Di Bella; Giovanni Donato Aquaro
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.214

10.  Association Between Inflammatory Markers and Myocardial Fibrosis.

Authors:  Mateus D Marques; Victor Nauffal; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Henrique D Vasconcellos; Colin Wu; Hossein Bahrami; Russell P Tracy; Mary Cushman; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 10.190

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.