OBJECTIVES: To investigate the diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature-tracking (FT) myocardial strain analysis in patients with suspected acute myocarditis and its association with myocardial oedema. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with suspected acute myocarditis and 35 control subjects underwent CMR. FT CMR analysis of systolic longitudinal (LS), circumferential (CS) and radial strain (RS) was performed. Additionally, the protocol allowed for the assessment of T1 and T2 relaxation times. RESULTS: When compared with healthy controls, myocarditis patients demonstrated reduced LS, CS and RS values (LS: -19.5 ± 4.4% vs. -23.6 ± 3.1%, CS: -23.0 ± 5.8% vs. -27.4 ± 3.4%, RS: 28.9 ± 8.5% vs. 32.4 ± 7.4%; P < 0.05, respectively). LS (T1: r = 0.462, P < 0.001; T2: r = 0.436, P < 0.001) and CS (T1: r = 0.429, P < 0.001; T2: r = 0.467, P < 0.001) showed the strongest correlations with T1 and T2 relaxations times. Area under the curve of LS (0.79) was higher compared with those of CS (0.75; P = 0.478) and RS (0.62; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: FT CMR myocardial strain analysis might serve as a new tool for assessment of myocardial dysfunction in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having acute myocarditis. Especially, LS and CS show a sufficient diagnostic performance and were most closely correlated with CMR parameters of myocardial oedema. KEY POINTS: • Myocardial strain measures are considerably reduced in patients with suspected myocarditis. • Myocardial strain measures can sufficiently discriminate between diseased and healthy patients. • Myocardial strain measures show basic associations with the extent of myocardial oedema/inflammation.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature-tracking (FT) myocardial strain analysis in patients with suspected acute myocarditis and its association with myocardial oedema. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with suspected acute myocarditis and 35 control subjects underwent CMR. FT CMR analysis of systolic longitudinal (LS), circumferential (CS) and radial strain (RS) was performed. Additionally, the protocol allowed for the assessment of T1 and T2 relaxation times. RESULTS: When compared with healthy controls, myocarditispatients demonstrated reduced LS, CS and RS values (LS: -19.5 ± 4.4% vs. -23.6 ± 3.1%, CS: -23.0 ± 5.8% vs. -27.4 ± 3.4%, RS: 28.9 ± 8.5% vs. 32.4 ± 7.4%; P < 0.05, respectively). LS (T1: r = 0.462, P < 0.001; T2: r = 0.436, P < 0.001) and CS (T1: r = 0.429, P < 0.001; T2: r = 0.467, P < 0.001) showed the strongest correlations with T1 and T2 relaxations times. Area under the curve of LS (0.79) was higher compared with those of CS (0.75; P = 0.478) and RS (0.62; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: FT CMR myocardial strain analysis might serve as a new tool for assessment of myocardial dysfunction in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having acute myocarditis. Especially, LS and CS show a sufficient diagnostic performance and were most closely correlated with CMR parameters of myocardial oedema. KEY POINTS: • Myocardial strain measures are considerably reduced in patients with suspected myocarditis. • Myocardial strain measures can sufficiently discriminate between diseased and healthy patients. • Myocardial strain measures show basic associations with the extent of myocardial oedema/inflammation.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Florian André; Florian T Stock; Johannes Riffel; Evangelos Giannitsis; Henning Steen; Jürgen Scharhag; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Julian A Luetkens; Rami Homsi; Alois M Sprinkart; Jonas Doerner; Darius Dabir; Daniel L Kuetting; Wolfgang Block; René Andrié; Christian Stehning; Rolf Fimmers; Juergen Gieseke; Daniel K Thomas; Hans H Schild; Claas P Naehle Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Philipp Lurz; Christian Luecke; Ingo Eitel; Felix Föhrenbach; Clara Frank; Matthias Grothoff; Suzanne de Waha; Karl-Philipp Rommel; Julia Anna Lurz; Karin Klingel; Reinhard Kandolf; Gerhard Schuler; Holger Thiele; Matthias Gutberlet Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Julian A Luetkens; Jonas Doerner; Daniel K Thomas; Darius Dabir; Juergen Gieseke; Alois M Sprinkart; Rolf Fimmers; Christian Stehning; Rami Homsi; Joerg O Schwab; Hans Schild; Claas P Naehle Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alois M Sprinkart; Julian A Luetkens; Frank Träber; Jonas Doerner; Jürgen Gieseke; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Georg Schmitz; Daniel Thomas; Rami Homsi; Wolfgang Block; Hans Schild; Claas P Naehle Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Julian A Luetkens; Anton Faron; Alexander Isaak; Darius Dabir; Daniel Kuetting; Andreas Feisst; Frederic C Schmeel; Alois M Sprinkart; Daniel Thomas Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2019-07-25
Authors: Alexander Isaak; Dmitrij Kravchenko; Narine Mesropyan; Christoph Endler; Leon M Bischoff; Thomas Vollbrecht; Daniel Thomas; Darius Dabir; Sebastian Zimmer; Ulrike Attenberger; Daniel Kuetting; Julian A Luetkens Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Merry L Lindsey; Zamaneh Kassiri; Jitka A I Virag; Lisandra E de Castro Brás; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.733