Literature DB >> 24378485

The potential additional diagnostic value of assessing for pericardial effusion on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspected myocarditis.

Philipp Lurz1, Ingo Eitel2, Bettina Klieme2, Christian Luecke3, Suzanne de Waha2, Steffen Desch2, Georg Fuernau2, Karin Klingel4, Reinhard Kandolf4, Matthias Grothoff3, Gerhard Schuler2, Matthias Gutberlet3, Holger Thiele2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The presence of pericardial effusion (PE) is considered to be suggestive of inflammation in suspected myocarditis. However, the incremental value of assessing for PE in addition to comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging remains unclear.
METHODS: In total, 132 patients with suspected acute (AMC) or chronic myocarditis (CMC) were included. All patients underwent endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and CMR. Imaging protocols included T2 imaging for the assessment of myocardial oedema (oedema ratio [ER]), T1 imaging before and after contrast agent administration for global relative enhancement (gRE) calculation, and late enhancement (LE). Furthermore, the presence and extent of PE were determined. The potential incremental diagnostic value of PE was determined by applying a two, three, or four out of four criteria approach including ER, gRE, LE, and PE.
RESULTS: PE was present in 84 of the 132 patients (63.6%) and was more common in suspected AMC vs. CMC (56 of 70 vs. 28 of 62; P < 0.001). According to EMB results, PE was found in 86% of patients with AMC, 67% with chronic myocarditis, and 56% without evidence of myocardial inflammation. Implementing PE into a three out of four approach did not result in improved accuracy compared with the established two out of three approach using ER, gRE, and LE (59 vs. 68% for the total population, 69 vs. 79% for suspected AMC, and 48 vs. 52% for suspected CMC).
CONCLUSION: The finding of PE in unselected patients with suspected AMC or CMC is not specific to myocarditis. Therefore, with the currently applied criteria and methods, assessment of PE does not improve the diagnostic performance of CMR in this patient cohort. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2013. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; Myocarditis; Pericardial effusion

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24378485     DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jet267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 2047-2404            Impact factor:   6.875


  4 in total

Review 1.  [Myocarditis in the differential diagnosis of cardiomyopathies. Endomyocardial biopsy or MRI?].

Authors:  C Besler; G Schuler; P Lurz
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 2.  Cardiac MRI Evaluation of Myocarditis.

Authors:  Lewis Hahn; Seth Kligerman
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2019-11-16

3.  Unexpected Reduced Biventricular Ejection Fraction in a Healthy Young Male.

Authors:  Alejandro Sanchez-Nadales; Valentina Celis; Miguel Treminio Quezada; Jessica Navarro; Elena Caldeira
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-03-16

4.  Performance of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosis of Myocarditis Compared with Endomyocardial Biopsy: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shuheng Wei; Jing Fu; Liang Chen; Shujing Yu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-07-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.