BACKGROUND: To compare cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) qualitative and quantitative analysis methods for the noninvasive assessment of myocardial inflammation in patients with suspected acute myocarditis (AM). METHODS: A total of 61 patients with suspected AM underwent coronary angiography and CMR. Qualitative analysis was performed applying Lake-Louise Criteria (LLC), followed by quantitative analysis based on the evaluation of edema ratio (ER) and global relative enhancement (RE). Diagnostic performance was assessed for each method by measuring the area under the curves (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic analyses. The final diagnosis of AM was based on symptoms and signs suggestive of cardiac disease, evidence of myocardial injury as defined by electrocardiogram changes, elevated troponin I, exclusion of coronary artery disease by coronary angiography, and clinical and echocardiographic follow-up at 3 months after admission to the chest pain unit. RESULTS: In all patients, coronary angiography did not show significant coronary artery stenosis. Troponin I levels and creatine kinase were higher in patients with AM compared to those without (both P < .001). There were no significant differences among LLC, T2-weighted short inversion time inversion recovery (STIR) sequences, early (EGE), and late (LGE) gadolinium-enhancement sequences for diagnosis of AM. The AUC for qualitative (T2-weighted STIR 0.92, EGE 0.87 and LGE 0.88) and quantitative (ER 0.89 and global RE 0.80) analyses were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and quantitative CMR analysis methods show similar diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of AM. These findings suggest that a simplified approach using a shortened CMR protocol including only T2-weighted STIR sequences might be useful to rule out AM in patients with acute coronary syndrome and normal coronary angiography.
BACKGROUND: To compare cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) qualitative and quantitative analysis methods for the noninvasive assessment of myocardial inflammation in patients with suspected acute myocarditis (AM). METHODS: A total of 61 patients with suspected AM underwent coronary angiography and CMR. Qualitative analysis was performed applying Lake-Louise Criteria (LLC), followed by quantitative analysis based on the evaluation of edema ratio (ER) and global relative enhancement (RE). Diagnostic performance was assessed for each method by measuring the area under the curves (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic analyses. The final diagnosis of AM was based on symptoms and signs suggestive of cardiac disease, evidence of myocardial injury as defined by electrocardiogram changes, elevated troponin I, exclusion of coronary artery disease by coronary angiography, and clinical and echocardiographic follow-up at 3 months after admission to the chest pain unit. RESULTS: In all patients, coronary angiography did not show significant coronary artery stenosis. Troponin I levels and creatine kinase were higher in patients with AM compared to those without (both P < .001). There were no significant differences among LLC, T2-weighted short inversion time inversion recovery (STIR) sequences, early (EGE), and late (LGE) gadolinium-enhancement sequences for diagnosis of AM. The AUC for qualitative (T2-weighted STIR 0.92, EGE 0.87 and LGE 0.88) and quantitative (ER 0.89 and global RE 0.80) analyses were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and quantitative CMR analysis methods show similar diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of AM. These findings suggest that a simplified approach using a shortened CMR protocol including only T2-weighted STIR sequences might be useful to rule out AM in patients with acute coronary syndrome and normal coronary angiography.
Entities:
Keywords:
Myocarditis; cardiac imaging; magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Christian W Hamm; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Stefan Agewall; Jeroen Bax; Eric Boersma; Hector Bueno; Pio Caso; Dariusz Dudek; Stephan Gielen; Kurt Huber; Magnus Ohman; Mark C Petrie; Frank Sonntag; Miguel Sousa Uva; Robert F Storey; William Wijns; Doron Zahger Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 29.983
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: Renjith Antony; Marwa Daghem; Gerry P McCann; Safa Daghem; James Moon; Dudley J Pennell; Stefan Neubauer; Henry J Dargie; Colin Berry; John Payne; Mark C Petrie; Nathaniel M Hawkins Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Antonio Esposito; Marco Francone; Riccardo Faletti; Maurizio Centonze; Filippo Cademartiri; Iacopo Carbone; Roberto De Rosa; Ernesto Di Cesare; Ludovico La Grutta; Guido Ligabue; Luigi Lovato; Erica Maffei; Riccardo Marano; Massimo Midiri; Gianluca Pontone; Luigi Natale; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2015-11-10
Authors: Vanessa M Ferreira; Stefan K Piechnik; Erica Dall'Armellina; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Jane M Francis; Ntobeko Ntusi; Cameron Holloway; Robin P Choudhury; Attila Kardos; Matthew D Robson; Matthias G Friedrich; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Maria Angela Losi; Massimo Imbriaco; Grazia Canciello; Filomena Pacelli; Carlo Di Nardo; Raffaella Lombardi; Raffaele Izzo; Costantino Mancusi; Andrea Ponsiglione; Serena Dell'Aversana; Alberto Cuocolo; Giovanni de Simone; Bruno Trimarco; Emanuele Barbato Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Leona S Alizadeh; Vitali Koch; Ibrahim Yel; Leon D Grünewald; Daniel Mathies; Simon Martin; Thomas J Vogl; Dominic Rauschning; Christian Booz Journal: Heliyon Date: 2022-05-28