| Literature DB >> 24895035 |
Christian Krieghoff1, Markus J Barten, Lysann Hildebrand, Matthias Grothoff, Lukas Lehmkuhl, Christian Lücke, Claudia Andres, Stefan Nitzsche, Franziska Riese, Martin Strüber, Friedrich Wilhelm Mohr, Matthias Gutberlet.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparing the diagnostic value of multi-sequential cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) for sub-clinical cardiac allograft rejection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24895035 PMCID: PMC4155184 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3246-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
HTx patient characteristics. Abbreviations: ISHLT = International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation, LV-EF = left-ventricular ejection fraction, LV-EDV = left-ventricular end-diastolic volume, LV-ESV = left-ventricular systolic volume
| All examinations (n = 146) | Histological Grade0 + 1A (ISHLT 1990) (n = 127) | Histological Grade ≥ 1B (ISHLT 1990) (n = 19) | Differences (p-value) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 52 ± 12 | 52 ± 12 | 48 ± 14 | 0.12 |
| Sex (male/female) | 115/31 | 101/26 | 14/5 | 0.55 |
| Months post-transplant | 77 ± 21 | 69 ± 21 | 77 ± 21 | 0.13 |
| LV-EF (%) | 58 ± 9 | 58 ± 9 | 58 ± 10 | 0.87 |
| LV-EDV (ml) | 130 ± 34 | 131 ± 34 | 124 ± 28 | 0.57 |
| LV-ESV (ml) | 56 ± 24 | 56 ± 24 | 54 ± 22 | 0.74 |
Fig. 1Short-axis STIR image with ROIs drawn in the myocardium and skeletal muscle. Edema Ratio (ER) is 3.0
Fig. 2Transverse T1-weighted TSE sequence before (a) and after contrast injection (b) with ROIs drawn in the myocardium and skeletal muscle. Global relative enhancement (gRE) is 3.0
Fig. 3Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis for the CMR parameters ER (a) and gRE (b) for the diagnosis of therapeutically relevant rejection (grade ≥ 1B) as compared to the results of EMB demonstrate good results for both parameters with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.724 for the ER (a) and 0.659 for the gRE (b)
Fig. 4The box-plots of the ER (a) and gRE (b) in patients with histological grade 0 and 1A (n = 127) vs. patients with grade 1B or higher (n = 19) demonstrated with statistically significant differences (*p < 0.05)
Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of different single and combined CMR parameters for diagnosis of therapeutically relevant acute rejection (grade ≥1B) as proven by EMB. Abbreviations: ER = edema ratio, gRE = global relative enhancement, LGE = late gadolinium enhancement
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER | 63 | 78 | 30 | 93 |
| gRE | 63 | 70 | 24 | 93 |
| LGE | 68 | 31 | 13 | 87 |
| 1 out of 3 (ER, gRE, LGE) | 95 | 18 | 15 | 96 |
| 2 out of 3 (ER, gRE, LGE) | 68 | 67 | 24 | 93 |
| 1 out of 2 (ER or gRE) | 84 | 57 | 23 | 96 |
Previous studies on CMR in detection of ACR in correlation with histological grade with an overview of included CMR parameters. Abbreviations: absolute = calculation of absolute T1- or T2-relaxation time, SI = measurement of signal intensity, relative = calculation of relative signal intensity, visual = visual assessment of myocardial hyperintensity or enhancement, ER = edema ratio, gRE = global relative enhancement, NA = not applicable; 1 cellular infiltrate and myocytolysis, 2 difference of pre- and postcontrast signal intensity divided by precontrast signal intensity 3>=1 focus of myocyte necrosis, 4 ratio of myocardial and skeletal muscle signal intensity, 5 difference of signal intensities pre- and postcontrast , 6 difference of pre- and postcontrast relative signal intensity divided by postcontrast relative signal intensity, 7 signal intensity ≥ standard deviations above that of remote myocardium
| Study | Number of patients (n)/CMR examinations (n) | Functional Parameters (Y/N) | T2-w imaging | Sens/Spec | Histological Criteria | T1-w imaging no CM | Sens/Spec | Gd-enhancement | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| early | Sens/Spec | late | Sens/Spec | ||||||||
| Wisenberg 1987 [ | 25/62 | Y | absolute | 93/96 | defined1 | absolute | 93/96 | - | - | - | - |
| Lund 1988 [ | 9/35 | N | absolute | NA | unknown | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Revel 1989 [ | 29 | Y | SI | NA | Billingham [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Doornbos 1990 [ | 14/42 | N | absolute | NA | Billingham [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Mousseaux 1993 [ | 39/39 | N | absolute | NA | ISHLT 1990 [ | - | - | relative2 | - | ||
| Smart 1993 [ | 8/33 | N | relative | 100 | McAlister [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Marie 1998 [ | 52/52 | N | absolute | 89/91 | ISHLT1990 [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Marie 2001 [ | 68/123 | N | absolute | 89/70 | ISHLT 1990 [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Almenar 2003 [ | 40/64 | Y | visual | NA | defined3 | relative4 | Absolute5 and relative6 | - | |||
| Taylor 2010 [ | 50/66 | Y | ER | 55/90 | ISHLT 2004 [ | - | - | gRE | 82/79 | relative7 | - |
| Usman 2012 [ | 53/68 | Y | absolute | 86.5/94.6 | ISHLT 2004 [ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Own results: 2013 | 73/146 | Y | ER | 63/78 | ISHLT ≥1B | - | NA | gRE | 63/70 | visual | 68/36 |