Lewis Hahn1, Seth Kligerman2. 1. Division of Cardiothoracic Radiology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, 200 West Arbor Drive, MC 8756, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA. Lehahn@ucsd.edu. 2. Division of Cardiothoracic Radiology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, 200 West Arbor Drive, MC 8756, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac MRI (CMR) is the non-invasive test of choice for the assessment of myocarditis. In 2009, the Lake Louise Criteria for the diagnosis of myocarditis using CMR were first released. The decade since that time has vastly improved our understanding of CMR's strengths and limitations. Traditional CMR methods including T2-weighted imaging and late gadolinium enhancement have proven their diagnostic value, but diagnostic performance is dependent on patient presentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Newer parametric mapping techniques have begun to be more comprehensively studied and may improve diagnostic accuracy of CMR in an expanded set of clinical scenarios. Additionally, the prognostic value of CMR has begun to solidify. These advances culminated in an update to the Lake Louise Criteria at the end of 2018. In this review, we discuss the evolution of the diagnostic criteria for CMR in the assessment of myocarditis. We also discuss the pathophysiologic premises behind the use of specific MRI sequences and an up-to-date summary of their individual utility.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac MRI (CMR) is the non-invasive test of choice for the assessment of myocarditis. In 2009, the Lake Louise Criteria for the diagnosis of myocarditis using CMR were first released. The decade since that time has vastly improved our understanding of CMR's strengths and limitations. Traditional CMR methods including T2-weighted imaging and late gadolinium enhancement have proven their diagnostic value, but diagnostic performance is dependent on patient presentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Newer parametric mapping techniques have begun to be more comprehensively studied and may improve diagnostic accuracy of CMR in an expanded set of clinical scenarios. Additionally, the prognostic value of CMR has begun to solidify. These advances culminated in an update to the Lake Louise Criteria at the end of 2018. In this review, we discuss the evolution of the diagnostic criteria for CMR in the assessment of myocarditis. We also discuss the pathophysiologic premises behind the use of specific MRI sequences and an up-to-date summary of their individual utility.
Authors: Syed S Mahmood; Michael G Fradley; Justine V Cohen; Anju Nohria; Kerry L Reynolds; Lucie M Heinzerling; Ryan J Sullivan; Rongras Damrongwatanasuk; Carol L Chen; Dipti Gupta; Michael C Kirchberger; Magid Awadalla; Malek Z O Hassan; Javid J Moslehi; Sachin P Shah; Sarju Ganatra; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; Donald P Lawrence; John D Groarke; Tomas G Neilan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel R Messroghli; James C Moon; Vanessa M Ferreira; Lars Grosse-Wortmann; Taigang He; Peter Kellman; Julia Mascherbauer; Reza Nezafat; Michael Salerno; Erik B Schelbert; Andrew J Taylor; Richard Thompson; Martin Ugander; Ruud B van Heeswijk; Matthias G Friedrich Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Rocio Hinojar; Lucy Foote; Eduardo Arroyo Ucar; Thomas Jackson; Andrew Jabbour; Chung-Yao Yu; Jane McCrohon; David M Higgins; Gerry Carr-White; Manuel Mayr; Eike Nagel; Valentina O Puntmann Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-12-10
Authors: Colin G Stirrat; Shirjel R Alam; Thomas J MacGillivray; Calum D Gray; Marc R Dweck; Kevin Dibb; Nick Spath; John R Payne; Sanjay K Prasad; Roy S Gardner; Saeed Mirsadraee; Peter A Henriksen; Scott Ik Semple; David E Newby Journal: Heart Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 7.365
Authors: Paola Del Carmen Guerra-de-Blas; Daniela Cruz-González; Elena B Martínez-Shio; Roberto González-Amaro; Héctor González-Pacheco; Esther Layseca-Espinosa; Carlos D Escobedo-Uribe; Adriana E Monsiváis-Urenda Journal: J Immunol Res Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.818