Waseem Hindieh1, Adaya Weissler-Snir1, Helene Hammer1, Arnon Adler1, Harry Rakowski1, Raymond H Chan2. 1. From the Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Ontario, Canada. 2. From the Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Ontario, Canada. raymond_chan@alumni.utoronto.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to compare maximal left ventricular (LV) wall thickness (WT) measurements as obtained by routine clinical practice between echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and document causes of discrepancy. METHODS AND RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-five patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (median age, 52.8±15.1 years) who underwent echocardiography and CMR imaging within 6 months (median, 41 days; interquartile range, 16-97 days) were included. LVWT was assessed in parasternal long and short axis by 2-dimensional echocardiography and in short axis by CMR. By Bland-Altman plot, mean maximal LVWT difference between echocardiography and CMR was 0.5 mm (95% confidence interval, -6.9, 7.8) with equal distribution of discrepancy along the full range of LVWT. Ninety-seven patients (49.7%) were identified to have intermodal measurement discrepancies ≥10%. In 7 patients (7.2%), reported measurement by CMR was inaccurate because of interpretation error. In 90 patients (92.8%), echocardiography underestimated (n=32; 33.0%) or overestimated (n=58; 59.8%) maximal LVWT. Underestimation was because of focal LV hypertrophy (n=10; 10.3%) or poor acoustic windows (n=22; 22.7%) while overestimation resulted from inclusion of right ventricular myocardium (n=37; 38.1%), LV trabeculations (n=5; 5.2%), papillary muscle (n=3; 3.1%), and apical-septal bundle (n=1; 1.0%), as well as imaging plane obliquity (n=7; 12.5%). In 31 (15.9%) patients, measurement discrepancy occurred at diagnostic or prognostic cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: Although maximal LVWT by echocardiography in general measured similar to CMR, discordance because of limitations in echocardiography technique was present in a significant subset of patients. As measurement of LVWT impacts diagnosis and sudden death management, CMR should be considered as part of routine evaluation of all patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
BACKGROUND: We sought to compare maximal left ventricular (LV) wall thickness (WT) measurements as obtained by routine clinical practice between echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and document causes of discrepancy. METHODS AND RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-five patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (median age, 52.8±15.1 years) who underwent echocardiography and CMR imaging within 6 months (median, 41 days; interquartile range, 16-97 days) were included. LVWT was assessed in parasternal long and short axis by 2-dimensional echocardiography and in short axis by CMR. By Bland-Altman plot, mean maximal LVWT difference between echocardiography and CMR was 0.5 mm (95% confidence interval, -6.9, 7.8) with equal distribution of discrepancy along the full range of LVWT. Ninety-seven patients (49.7%) were identified to have intermodal measurement discrepancies ≥10%. In 7 patients (7.2%), reported measurement by CMR was inaccurate because of interpretation error. In 90 patients (92.8%), echocardiography underestimated (n=32; 33.0%) or overestimated (n=58; 59.8%) maximal LVWT. Underestimation was because of focal LV hypertrophy (n=10; 10.3%) or poor acoustic windows (n=22; 22.7%) while overestimation resulted from inclusion of right ventricular myocardium (n=37; 38.1%), LV trabeculations (n=5; 5.2%), papillary muscle (n=3; 3.1%), and apical-septal bundle (n=1; 1.0%), as well as imaging plane obliquity (n=7; 12.5%). In 31 (15.9%) patients, measurement discrepancy occurred at diagnostic or prognostic cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: Although maximal LVWT by echocardiography in general measured similar to CMR, discordance because of limitations in echocardiography technique was present in a significant subset of patients. As measurement of LVWT impacts diagnosis and sudden death management, CMR should be considered as part of routine evaluation of all patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Authors: Ciara O'Brien; Ian Britton; Gauri R Karur; Robert M Iwanochko; Chantal F Morel; Elsie T Nguyen; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; Anna Woo; Kate Hanneman Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-06-11
Authors: Manisha Sahota; Sepas Ryan Saraskani; Hao Xu; Liandong Li; Abdul Wahab Majeed; Uxio Hermida; Stefan Neubauer; Milind Desai; William Weintraub; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Raymond Y Kwong; Christopher M Kramer; Alistair A Young; Pablo Lamata Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 2.316
Authors: Daniele Massera; Robyn L McClelland; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Antoinette S Gomes; W Gregory Hundley; Nadine Kawel-Boehm; Kihei Yoneyama; David S Owens; Mario J Garcia; Mark V Sherrid; Jorge R Kizer; Joao A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Andrea Baggiano; Alberico Del Torto; Marco Guglielmo; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Laura Fusini; Mario Babbaro; Ada Collevecchio; Rocco Mollace; Stefano Scafuri; Saima Mushtaq; Edoardo Conte; Andrea Daniele Annoni; Alberto Formenti; Maria Elisabetta Mancini; Giulia Mostardini; Daniele Andreini; Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Mauro Pepi; Marianna Fontana; Gianluca Pontone Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-09-29
Authors: Christian Steinberg; Charles Nadeau-Routhier; Philippe André; François Philippon; Jean-François Sarrazin; Isabelle Nault; Gilles O'Hara; Louis Blier; Franck Molin; Benoit Plourde; Karine Roy; Eric Larose; Marie Arsenault; Jean Champagne Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2020-10-22