| Literature DB >> 31462282 |
Darius Dabir1, Thomas M Vollbrecht1, Julian A Luetkens1, Daniel L R Kuetting1, Alexander Isaak1, Andreas Feisst1, Rolf Fimmers2, Alois M Sprinkart1, Hans H Schild1, Daniel Thomas3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial T1 and T2 mapping are reliable diagnostic markers for the detection and follow up of acute myocarditis. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of current mapping measurement approaches to differentiate between myocarditis patients and healthy individuals.Entities:
Keywords: Accuracy; ECV; Mapping; Measurement approach; Myocarditis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31462282 PMCID: PMC6714458 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-019-0568-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Example of the different measurement approaches. Colour encoded T1 maps in short axis (SAX) orientation with examples of different measurement approaches. (a-c) Global approach with the region-of-interest (ROI) including the whole apical (a), midventricular (b), and basal (c) SAX slice (in the latter case at the transition from midventricular to basal). (d) mid short axis (mSAX) approach with ROI placement within the midventricular short axis slice. (e) midventricular septal wall (ConSept) approach with ROI placement conservatively within the midventricular septum, taking care to avoid “contamination” with signal from the blood pool
Fig. 2Remote measurement approach. 30 year-old patient with acute myocarditis, markedly located within the midventricular and basal lateral wall (arrow heads). The figure shows short tau inversion recovery (STIR) images (a-c) and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images (d-f), as well as native T1 maps (g-i) in apical (a, d, g), midventricular (b, e, h), and basal (c, f, g) SA orientation. The remote measurement approach is shown within the T1-maps (g-i) where a ROI was placed within visually unaffected segments and at a safe distance from affected ones
Patients’ clinical and CMR characteristics
| Healthy Control Group | Myocarditis Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 36.9 ± 13.5 | 38 ± 16.3 | 0.764 |
| Male (%) | 23 (77) | 37 (74) | 0.505 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.3 ± 4.1 | 25.4 ± 5.2 | 0.937 |
| CMR results | |||
| Symptom onset to CMR (d) | – | 2.9 ± 1.8 | – |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 68.1 ± 12.4 | 74.1 ± 15.2 | 0.170 |
| LVEF (%) | 61.6 ± 4.6 | 55.3 ± 9.4 | 0.004 |
| LVEDV/BSA (ml/m2) | 74.3 ± 9.4 | 78.1 ± 17.1 | 0.552 |
| IVST (mm) | 9.5 ± 1.6 | 9.8 ± 1.7 | .311 |
| Blood values | |||
| Max. Trop I (ng/ml) | – | 18.9 ± 78.2 | – |
| Leucocytes (103/μmL) | 6.5 ± 1.7 | 10.4 ± 4.7 | 0.001 |
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | 1.0 ± .8 | 70.7 ± 99 | <0.001 |
| CK-MB mass | – | 21.4 ± 36.6 | – |
| Creatine kinase (U/L) | – | 363.5 ± 489.8 | – |
| Haematocrit (%) | 41.7 ± 3.9 | 40.5 ± 5.6 | 0.304 |
| Number of patients with myocarditis specific parameters (%) | |||
| Fulfilling the LLC (%) | 0 (0) | 36 (72) | <0.001 |
| T2 ratio/visible edema (%) | 2 (7) | 33 (66) | <0.001 |
| EGEr/aME (%) | 6 (20) | 24 (59) | 0.001 |
| LGE (%) | 0 (0) | 39 (78) | <0.001 |
| Myocarditis specific parameters | |||
| T2 SI myocardium | 763.5 ± 268.9 | 893.4 ± 262.7 | 0.004 |
| T2 SI skeletal muscle | 472.5 ± 157.3 | 465 ± 132.8 | 0.826 |
| T2 ratio | 1.6 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | <0.001 |
| EGEr | 2.3 ± 1.9 | 3.1 ± 1.8 | 0.063 |
| aMe (%) | 37.5 ± 18.3 | 54.4 ± 31.6 | 0.007 |
| LGE in % | 0 | 12,1 ± 11.8 | – |
BMI body mass index, CK creatine kinase, CMR cardiovascular magnetic resonance, EGEr early gadolinium enhancement ratio, LGE late gadolinium enhancement, LLC Lake Louise Criteria
Results for quantitative CMR parameters regarding different measurement approaches
| Control group | Myocarditis group | pValue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native T1 (ms) | |||
| Global | 958.9 ± 22.5 | 1027.2 ± 49.3 | <0.001 |
| mSAX | 954.3 ± 28.6 | 1023.4 ± 29.9 | <0.001 |
| ConSept | 969.7 ± 28.6 | 1022.8 ± 60.8 | <0.001 |
| Remote | 958.9 ± 22.5 | 1014.3 ± 54.7 | <0.001 |
| ECV (%) | |||
| Global | 27.7 ± 3.2 | 32 ± 6.4 | 0.010 |
| mSAX | 26.6 ± 3.5 | 31.4 ± 7.2 | 0.005 |
| ConSept | 27.7 ± 4.2 | 31 ± 7.2 | 0.043 |
| Remote | 27.7 ± 3.2 | 31.9 ± 7.1 | 0.027 |
| T2 (ms) | |||
| Global | 51.6 ± 1.9 | 58 ± 6 | <0.001 |
| mSAX | 51.4 ± 3.2 | 58.4 ± 7 | <0.001 |
| ConSept | 51.2 ± 3.9 | 58.2 ± 7.4 | <0.001 |
| Remote | 51.6 ± 1.9 | 56.4 ± 6.1 | <0.001 |
ConSept midventricular septal wall, ECV extracellular volume fraction, mSAX midventricular short axis
Results for diagnostic performance of different measurement approaches
| Cut off | AUC | Sensitivity (%) | Specifity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native T1 (ms) | |||||||
| Global | > 980 | 0.903 | 85 | 90 | 93 | 79 | 87 |
| mSAX | > 985 | 0.850 | 76 | 93 | 95 | 72 | 83 |
| ConSept | > 999 | 0.783 | 65 | 97 | 97 | 62 | 77 |
| Remote | > 980 | 0.841 | 73 | 90 | 91 | 69 | 80 |
| ECV (%) | |||||||
| Global | > 31 | 0.731 | 47 | 88 | 87 | 49 | 62 |
| mSAX | > 28 | 0.717 | 67 | 72 | 81 | 56 | 69 |
| ConSept | > 27 | 0.633 | 70 | 52 | 71 | 50 | 63 |
| Remote | > 29 | 0.685 | 64 | 68 | 76 | 55 | 66 |
| T2 (ms) | |||||||
| Global | > 54 | 0.847 | 80 | 87 | 90 | 74 | 82 |
| mSAX | > 53 | 0.831 | 78 | 87 | 90 | 72 | 81 |
| ConSept | > 53 | 0.820 | 80 | 87 | 90 | 74 | 82 |
| Remote | > 54 | 0.799 | 74 | 87 | 89 | 70 | 79 |
ECV extracellular volume fraction, mSAX midventricular short axis, NPV negative predictive value, PPV positive predictive value
Fig. 3Receiver operator characteristic curves for the different measurement approaches. The graphs show receiver operator characteristic curves (ROCs) for the different measurement approaches. (a) Native T1: global (AUC: 0.903), mSAX (AUC: 0.850), midventricular septal (ConSept) (AUC: 0.783), remote (AUC: 0.841). (b) ECV: global (AUC: 0.731), mSAX (AUC: 0.717), ConSept (AUC:0 .633), remote (AUC: 0.685). (c) T2: global (AUC: 0.847), mSAX (AUC: 0.831), ConSept (AUC: 0.820), remote (AUC: 0.799)
Results for intra- and inter-observer agreement regarding the different measurement approaches
| Intra-observer agreement | Inter-observer agreement | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Δm (ms) | 95% CI (ms) | Pearson’s r | Δm (ms) | 95% CI (ms) | Pearson’s r | |
| Native T1 | ||||||
| Global | 4.9 | [−8.2;18.1] | .99 | 3.2 | [−14.6;20.9] | .98 |
| mSAX | 8.1 | [−23;39.3] | .96 | 0.9 | [−33.5;35.4] | .96 |
| ConSept | 11.8 | [− 46.9;70.6] | .85 | 17 | [−46.8;80.8] | .83 |
| Remote | 4.2 | [−9.9;18.3] | .99 | 5.6 | [− 34.8;46] | .88 |
| ECV | ||||||
| Global | 0.6 | [−3.8;5.1] | .96 | 0.5 | [−3;4] | .98 |
| mSAX | 2.1 | [−6.4;10.6] | .87 | 1.8 | [−5.6;9.2] | .90 |
| ConSept | 2 | [−5.7;9.8] | .89 | 1.4 | [−5.6;8.4] | .92 |
| Remote | 0.5 | [−2.9;3.8] | .98 | 0.6 | [−1.9;3.2] | .99 |
| T2 | ||||||
| Global | 0.5 | [−2;3] | .97 | 0.3 | [−3;3.5] | .97 |
| mSAX | 0.7 | [−7;8.3] | .88 | −0.2 | [−7.1;6.7] | .94 |
| ConSept | 2.2 | [−3.9;8.2] | .92 | 3.1 | [−7.4;13.6] | .73 |
| Remote | 0.7 | [−1.4;2.7] | .99 | 0.5 | [−2.9;3.8] | .97 |