| Literature DB >> 28616546 |
Niranjan Gaikwad1, Thomas Butler1, Ryan Maxwell1, Elizabeth Shaw1,2, Wendy E Strugnell3, Jonathan Chan1,4, Gemma A Figtree2, Richard E Slaughter3, Christian Hamilton-Craig1,3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has been recommended to distinguish Tako-tsubo cardiomyopathy (TTC) from either acute myocardial infarction or myocarditis.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac magnetic resonance; Infarct quantitation; Late gadolinium enhancement; Speckle tracking strain echocardiography; Stress cardiomyopathy; Tako-tsubo
Year: 2016 PMID: 28616546 PMCID: PMC5454175 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2016.07.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc ISSN: 2352-9067
Fig. 1Patient with normal coronary arteries (A), and the classic takotsubo “apical ballooning” wall motion abnormality at ventriculography (B). CMR end-systolic 4-chamber view showing the apical ballooning on cine imaging (C), with quantitative LGE represented by an AHA16-segment model polar plot (D). E-G show the signal analysis contours, with signal > 5 SD above remote myocardium, most obvious in the apical slice (G).
Fig. 2TTC without LGE.
Upper: CMR LGE images in 2-chamber and 4-chamber views, showing absence of late gadolinium enhancement.
Lower: Quantitative analysis of 2D speckle strain (panel A) and late gadolinium enhancement (panel B) demonstrated in matching segmental polar maps (AHA segments).
Fig. 3TTC with LGE:
Upper: 4chamber view showing increased signal intensity in the septum and apical segments (panel A, arrows), and quantitative signal intensity analysis with automated colour overlay (panel B) showing > 2 standard deviations above normal reference myocardium in the unaffected segments.
Lower: Polar maps of 2D speckle strain (panel A) and LGE-CMR (panel B) demonstrating concordance between the segments with markedly abnormal strain and the degree of enhancement by CMR.
Characteristics of patients with TCC, with and without LGE on CMR.
| Peak TnI | Sex | Age | Door-to-MRI | RWMA variant | LVEF acute | LVEF | Quantitative LGE as %LV mass | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| > 2 SD | > 5 SD | ||||||||
| LGE − ve | 1.1 | F | 83 | n/a | Apical | 28 | 55 | 0 | 0 |
| 2.3 | F | 44 | 96 | Mid | 50 | 57 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.1 | F | 82 | 76 | Apical | 50 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.7 | F | 69 | 110 | Apical | 48 | 54 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2.2 | F | 41 | 47 | Mid | 40 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.8 | F | 67 | 61 | Apical | 44 | 56 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1.9 | F | 87 | 144 | Apical | 30 | 60 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6.4 | F | 79 | n/a | Apical | 50 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.4 | F | 76 | n/a | Mid | 57 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| 4.7 | F | 46 | 15 | Mid | 39 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.1 | F | 57 | 28 | Mid | 55 | 67 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.2 | F | 62 | 92 | Mid | 42 | 66 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1.6 | F | 60 | 65 | Apical | 48 | 66 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4.3 | F | 76 | 16 | Apical | 49 | 59 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.2 | F | 70 | 46 | Apical | 44 | 56 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.4 | F | 67 | n/a | Mid | 52 | 58 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2.4 | F | 58 | 45 | Apical | 35 | 67 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.5 | F | 67 | 78 | Apical | 57 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | F | 69 | 85 | Mid | 54 | 69 | 0 | 0 | |
| n/a | F | 66 | 73 | Apical | 46 | 51 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5.5 | F | 66 | 76 | Apical | 28 | 55 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | F | 70 | 108 | Mid | 55 | 59 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1.6 | F | 63 | 6 | Apical | 36 | 59 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.9 | F | 65 | 44 | Mid | 38 | 54 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6.4 | M | 64 | 115 | Mid | 47 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| 2.6 | M | 71 | 53 | Mid | 53 | n/a | 0 | 0 | |
| LGE + ve | 0.2 | F | 67 | 33 | Apical | 33 | n/a | 35.15 | 0 |
| 1.5 | F | 59 | 86 | Apical | 43 | 19.27 | 0 | ||
| 1.7 | F | 76 | 37 | Apical | 51 | 25.01 | 3.54 | ||
| 7.5 | F | 63 | 63 | Apical | 32 | 62 | 30.62 | 11.43 | |
| 3.9 | F | 60 | n/a | Apical | 25 | n/a | 32.65 | 11.62 | |
| 3.5 | F | 68 | 27 | Mid | 36 | 58 | 34.8 | 24 | |
| 0.2 | M | 63 | 115 | Apical | 45 | 52 | 36.6 | 24.3 | |
| 0.7 | F | 62 | 15 | Apical | 48 | 67 | 24.42 | 24.47 | |
| 30 | F | 68 | 43 | Apical | 36 | 43 | 46 | 24.6 | |
| 1.2 | F | 63 | 48 | Mid | 50 | 64 | 46.9 | 28.75 | |
| 1.2 | F | 70 | 8 | Apical | 38 | 69 | 48.61 | 29.98 | |
| 3 | F | 83 | 76 | Api | 45 | 67 | 24.3 | 10.1 | |
| 2.6 | F | 73 | 42 | Api | 38 | n/a | 18.4 | 4.5 | |
| 3.1 | F | 66 | 50 | Mid | 40 | 56 | 11.2 | 3.3 | |
| 0.2 | M | 77 | 22 | Api | 38 | n/a | 29.3 | 3 | |
| 4.4 | F | 76 | 10 | Api | 35 | 69 | 13.9 | 1.5 | |
| 4.3 | F | 60 | 17 | mid | 49 | n/a | 18 | 14.4 | |
| 10 | F | 50 | 71 | Api | 44 | 53 | 22.4 | 7.2 | |
F = female; M = male; TnI = troponin I; RWMA = Regional wall motion abnormality; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction by CMR; f/up = follow up; LGE = − late gadolinium enhancement; SD = standard deviation.
Fig. 4Bargraph comparing the troponin levels of TTC patients with and without LGE.
Fig. 5Bargraph comparing LVEF between TTC patients with and without LGE.