AIMS: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has strong prognostic implications and is associated with heart failure. Recently, myocardial contraction fraction (MCF) was identified as a useful marker for specifically identifying cardiac amyloidosis (CA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MCF for the discrimination of different forms of LVH. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scans of patients with CA (n = 132), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM, n = 60), hypertensive heart disease (HHD, n = 38) and in 100 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. MCF was calculated by dividing left ventricular (LV) stroke volume by LV myocardial volume. The diagnostic accuracy of MCF was compared to that of LV ejection fraction (EF) and the mass index (MI). Compared with controls (136.3 ± 24.4%, P < 0.05), mean values for MCF were significantly reduced in LVH (HHD:92.6 ± 20%, HCM:80 ± 20.3%, transthyretin CA:74.9 ± 32.2% and light-chain (AL) CA:50.5 ± 21.4%). MCF performed better than LVEF (AUC = 0.96 vs. AUC = 0.6, P < 0.001) and was comparable to LVMI (AUC = 0.95, P = 0.4) in discriminating LVH from controls. There was a significant yet weak correlation between MCF and LVEF (r = 0.43, P < 0.0001). MCF outperformed LVEF and LVMI in discriminating between different etiologies of LVH and between AL and other forms of LVH (AUC = 0.84, P < 0.0001). Moreover, cut-off values for MCF <50% and LVEF <60% allowed to identify patients with high probability for CA. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure MCF discriminates CA from other forms of LVH. As it can easily be derived from standard, non-contrast cine images, it may be a very useful marker in the diagnostic workup of patients with LVH. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has strong prognostic implications and is associated with heart failure. Recently, myocardial contraction fraction (MCF) was identified as a useful marker for specifically identifying cardiac amyloidosis (CA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MCF for the discrimination of different forms of LVH. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scans of patients with CA (n = 132), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM, n = 60), hypertensive heart disease (HHD, n = 38) and in 100 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. MCF was calculated by dividing left ventricular (LV) stroke volume by LV myocardial volume. The diagnostic accuracy of MCF was compared to that of LV ejection fraction (EF) and the mass index (MI). Compared with controls (136.3 ± 24.4%, P < 0.05), mean values for MCF were significantly reduced in LVH (HHD:92.6 ± 20%, HCM:80 ± 20.3%, transthyretin CA:74.9 ± 32.2% and light-chain (AL) CA:50.5 ± 21.4%). MCF performed better than LVEF (AUC = 0.96 vs. AUC = 0.6, P < 0.001) and was comparable to LVMI (AUC = 0.95, P = 0.4) in discriminating LVH from controls. There was a significant yet weak correlation between MCF and LVEF (r = 0.43, P < 0.0001). MCF outperformed LVEF and LVMI in discriminating between different etiologies of LVH and between AL and other forms of LVH (AUC = 0.84, P < 0.0001). Moreover, cut-off values for MCF <50% and LVEF <60% allowed to identify patients with high probability for CA. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure MCF discriminates CA from other forms of LVH. As it can easily be derived from standard, non-contrast cine images, it may be a very useful marker in the diagnostic workup of patients with LVH. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Catherine Gebhard; Monika Maredziak; Michael Messerli; Ronny R Buechel; Fay Lin; Heidi Gransar; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Daniele Andreini; Jeroen J Bax; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo C Cury; Augustin DeLago; Gudrun Feuchtner; Martin Hadamitzky; Joerg Hausleiter; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon Leipsic; Erica Maffei; Hugo Marques; Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves; Gianluca Pontone; Gilbert L Raff; Ronen Rubinshtein; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines; Yao Lu; Erica C Jones; Jessica M Peña; James K Min; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Sharmila Dorbala; Yukio Ando; Sabahat Bokhari; Angela Dispenzieri; Rodney H Falk; Victor A Ferrari; Marianna Fontana; Olivier Gheysens; Julian D Gillmore; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Mazen A Hanna; Bouke P C Hazenberg; Arnt V Kristen; Raymond Y Kwong; Mathew S Maurer; Giampaolo Merlini; Edward J Miller; James C Moon; Venkatesh L Murthy; C Cristina Quarta; Claudio Rapezzi; Frederick L Ruberg; Sanjiv J Shah; Riemer H J A Slart; Hein J Verberne; Jamieson M Bourque Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Marwah Abdalla; Elvis A Akwo; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima; Daichi Shimbo; Mathew S Maurer; Alain G Bertoni Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Nisha Arenja; Florian Andre; Johannes H Riffel; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Ute Hegenbart; Stefan Schönland; Arnt V Kristen; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Katia Menacho; Sara Ramirez; Pedro Segura; Sabrina Nordin; Amna Abdel-Gadir; Violeta Illatopa; Anish Bhuva; Giulia Benedetti; Redha Boubertakh; Pedro Abad; Bertha Rodriguez; Felix Medina; Thomas Treibel; Mark Westwood; Juliano Fernandes; John Malcolm Walker; Harold Litt; James C Moon Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 5.501