M Spieker1, E Katsianos1, M Gastl1, P Behm1, P Horn1, C Jacoby1, B Schnackenburg2, P Reinecke3, M Kelm1,4, R Westenfeld1, F Bönner1. 1. Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, Moorenstraße 5, Duesseldorf 40221, Germany. 2. Philips Healthcare, Röntgenstraße 24, Hamburg 22335, Germany. 3. Insitute of Pathology, Heinrich-Heine University, Moorenstraße 5, Duesseldorf 40221, Germany. 4. CARID (Cardiovascular Research Institute Düsseldorf), Moorenstraße 5, Duesseldorf 40221, Germany.
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the value of T2 mapping for the non-invasive assessment of myocardial inflammation in different stages of systolic left ventricular dysfunction in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in comparison with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). Methods and results: A total of 132 subjects were enrolled between 2013 and 2016 (62 controls and 70 patients with DCM). All patients underwent CMR at 1.5 T and received coronary angiogram and EMB. CMR applied standard protocols including T2 mapping with Gradient And SpinEcho sequence (GRASE). Global T2 relaxation time was significantly increased in patients with DCM compared to the healthy controls (T2 time DCM vs. controls: 65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 60.0 ± 4.2 ms; P < 0.001). Of note, patients with the presence of inflammatory cells in EMB exhibited further elevation of T2 values (T2 time in patients with the presence of inflammatory cells vs. T2 time in patients without: 68.8 ± 5.8 vs. 64.7 ± 5.9 ms; P = 0.02). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of our data deciphered a global myocardial T2 time >65.3 ms as the best cut-off for distinction between the healthy controls and patients with myocardial inflammation [sensitivity 93%, specificity 90%, P < 0.01, area under the curve (AUC) 0.95]. In patients with DCM, this threshold identified patients with biopsy-proven inflammation with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity 58% (AUC 0.72). Conclusion: In patients with DCM and presence of inflammatory cells in the myocardium, myocardial T2 relaxation times may help to non-invasively detect myocardial inflammation. Although there is an overlap of T2 values between patients and healthy controls, T2 mapping may facilitate the identification of patients who may benefit from EMB for therapeutic decision-making.
Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the value of T2 mapping for the non-invasive assessment of myocardial inflammation in different stages of systolic left ventricular dysfunction in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in comparison with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). Methods and results: A total of 132 subjects were enrolled between 2013 and 2016 (62 controls and 70 patients with DCM). All patients underwent CMR at 1.5 T and received coronary angiogram and EMB. CMR applied standard protocols including T2 mapping with Gradient And SpinEcho sequence (GRASE). Global T2 relaxation time was significantly increased in patients with DCM compared to the healthy controls (T2 time DCM vs. controls: 65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 60.0 ± 4.2 ms; P < 0.001). Of note, patients with the presence of inflammatory cells in EMB exhibited further elevation of T2 values (T2 time in patients with the presence of inflammatory cells vs. T2 time in patients without: 68.8 ± 5.8 vs. 64.7 ± 5.9 ms; P = 0.02). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of our data deciphered a global myocardial T2 time >65.3 ms as the best cut-off for distinction between the healthy controls and patients with myocardial inflammation [sensitivity 93%, specificity 90%, P < 0.01, area under the curve (AUC) 0.95]. In patients with DCM, this threshold identified patients with biopsy-proven inflammation with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity 58% (AUC 0.72). Conclusion: In patients with DCM and presence of inflammatory cells in the myocardium, myocardial T2 relaxation times may help to non-invasively detect myocardial inflammation. Although there is an overlap of T2 values between patients and healthy controls, T2 mapping may facilitate the identification of patients who may benefit from EMB for therapeutic decision-making.
Authors: Srilakshmi Vallabhaneni; Kathleen W Zhang; Jose A Alvarez-Cardona; Joshua D Mitchell; Henning Steen; Pamela K Woodard; Daniel J Lenihan Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Brendan L Eck; Scott D Flamm; Deborah H Kwon; W H Wilson Tang; Claudia Prieto Vasquez; Nicole Seiberlich Journal: Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 9.795
Authors: G J H Snel; M van den Boomen; L M Hernandez; C T Nguyen; D E Sosnovik; B K Velthuis; R H J A Slart; R J H Borra; N H J Prakken Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Tilman Emrich; Felix Hahn; David Fleischmann; Moritz C Halfmann; Christoph Düber; Akos Varga-Szemes; Felicitas Escher; Evgenia Pefani; Thomas Münzel; Heinz-Peter Schultheiss; Karl-Friedrich Kreitner; Philip Wenzel Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-08-13
Authors: Anneloes de Boer; Anita A Harteveld; Bjorn Stemkens; Peter J Blankestijn; Clemens Bos; Suzanne L Franklin; Martijn Froeling; Jaap A Joles; Marianne C Verhaar; Nico van den Berg; Hans Hoogduin; Tim Leiner Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.813