Jonathan A Pan1, Matthew J Kerwin1, Michael Salerno2. 1. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. 2. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: ms5pc@virginia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of native T1 mapping (T1), extracellular volume (ECV) mapping, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging for evaluating cardiac amyloidosis (CA). BACKGROUND: CA is a progressive infiltrative process in the extracellular space that is often underdiagnosed and holds a poor prognosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers novel techniques for detecting and quantifying the disease burden of CA. METHODS: We searched PubMed for published studies using native T1, ECV, or LGE to diagnose and prognosticate CA. A total of 18 diagnostic (n = 2,015) and 13 prognostic studies (n = 1,483) were included for analysis. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of all diagnostic tests were assessed by bivariate analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality for the 3 techniques were determined. RESULTS: Bivariate comparison showed that ECV (DOR: 84.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.3 to 236.2) had a significantly higher DOR for CA than LGE (DOR: 20.1; 95% CI: 9.1 to 44.1; p = 0.03 vs. ECV). There was no significant difference between LGE and native T1 for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR. HR was significantly higher for ECV (HR: 4.27; 95% CI: 2.87 to 6.37) compared with LGE (HR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.90 to 3.56; p = 0.03 vs. ECV) and native T1 (HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.24 to 3.37; p = 0.01 vs. ECV). CONCLUSIONS: ECV demonstrates a higher diagnostic OR for assessing cardiac amyloid than LGE and a higher HR for adverse events compared with LGE and native T1. In addition, native T1 showed similar sensitivity and specificity as ECV and LGE without requiring contrast material. Although limited by study heterogeneity, this meta-analysis suggests that ECV provides high diagnostic and prognostic utility for the assessment of cardiac amyloidosis.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of native T1 mapping (T1), extracellular volume (ECV) mapping, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging for evaluating cardiac amyloidosis (CA). BACKGROUND: CA is a progressive infiltrative process in the extracellular space that is often underdiagnosed and holds a poor prognosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers novel techniques for detecting and quantifying the disease burden of CA. METHODS: We searched PubMed for published studies using native T1, ECV, or LGE to diagnose and prognosticate CA. A total of 18 diagnostic (n = 2,015) and 13 prognostic studies (n = 1,483) were included for analysis. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of all diagnostic tests were assessed by bivariate analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality for the 3 techniques were determined. RESULTS: Bivariate comparison showed that ECV (DOR: 84.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.3 to 236.2) had a significantly higher DOR for CA than LGE (DOR: 20.1; 95% CI: 9.1 to 44.1; p = 0.03 vs. ECV). There was no significant difference between LGE and native T1 for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR. HR was significantly higher for ECV (HR: 4.27; 95% CI: 2.87 to 6.37) compared with LGE (HR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.90 to 3.56; p = 0.03 vs. ECV) and native T1 (HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.24 to 3.37; p = 0.01 vs. ECV). CONCLUSIONS: ECV demonstrates a higher diagnostic OR for assessing cardiac amyloid than LGE and a higher HR for adverse events compared with LGE and native T1. In addition, native T1 showed similar sensitivity and specificity as ECV and LGE without requiring contrast material. Although limited by study heterogeneity, this meta-analysis suggests that ECV provides high diagnostic and prognostic utility for the assessment of cardiac amyloidosis.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy C Wong; Kayla Piehler; Christopher G Meier; Stephen M Testa; Amanda M Klock; Ali A Aneizi; Jonathan Shakesprere; Peter Kellman; Sanjeev G Shroff; David S Schwartzman; Suresh R Mulukutla; Marc A Simon; Erik B Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Holger Vogelsberg; Heiko Mahrholdt; Claudia C Deluigi; Ali Yilmaz; Eva M Kispert; Simon Greulich; Karin Klingel; Reinhard Kandolf; Udo Sechtem Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ana Martinez-Naharro; Amna Abdel-Gadir; Thomas A Treibel; Giulia Zumbo; Daniel S Knight; Stefania Rosmini; Thirusha Lane; Shameem Mahmood; Sajitha Sachchithanantham; Carol J Whelan; Helen J Lachmann; Ashutosh D Wechalekar; Peter Kellman; Julian D Gillmore; James C Moon; Philip N Hawkins; Marianna Fontana Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Marco M Ochs; Thomas Fritz; Nisha Arenja; Johannes Riffel; Florian Andre; Derliz Mereles; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Ute Hegenbart; Stefan Schönland; Hugo A Katus; Matthias G W Friedrich; Sebastian J Buss Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Daniel Lavall; Nicola H Vosshage; Romy Geßner; Stephan Stöbe; Sebastian Ebel; Timm Denecke; Andreas Hagendorff; Ulrich Laufs Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Marcus V Simões; Fabio Fernandes; Fabiana G Marcondes-Braga; Philip Scheinberg; Edileide de Barros Correia; Luis Eduardo P Rohde; Fernando Bacal; Silvia Marinho Martins Alves; Sandrigo Mangini; Andréia Biolo; Luis Beck-da-Silva; Roberta Shcolnik Szor; Wilson Marques Junior; Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira; Márcia Waddington Cruz; Bruno Vaz Kerges Bueno; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Aurora Felice Castro Issa; Felix José Alvarez Ramires; Otavio Rizzi Coelho Filho; André Schmidt; Ibraim Masciarelli Francisco Pinto; Carlos Eduardo Rochitte; Marcelo Luiz Campos Vieira; Cláudio Tinoco Mesquita; Celso Dario Ramos; José Soares-Junior; Minna Moreira Dias Romano; Wilson Mathias Junior; Marcelo Iório Garcia Junior; Marcelo Westerlund Montera; Marcelo Dantas Tavares de Melo; Sandra Marques E Silva; Pedro Manoel Marques Garibaldi; Aristóteles Comte de Alencar Neto; Renato Delascio Lopes; Diane Xavier de Ávila; Denizar Viana; José Francisco Kerr Saraiva; Manoel Fernandes Canesin; Glaucia Maria Moraes de Oliveira; Evandro Tinoco Mesquita Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Zsofia Dohy; Liliana Szabo; Zoltan Pozsonyi; Ibolya Csecs; Attila Toth; Ferenc Imre Suhai; Csilla Czimbalmos; Andrea Szucs; Anna Reka Kiss; David Becker; Bela Merkely; Hajnalka Vago Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Golnaz Roshankar; Geneva C White; Sebastien Cadet; Nowell M Fine; Denise Chan; James A White; Victor Jimenez-Zepeda; Piotr J Slomka; Robert J H Miller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-10-03 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Jeremy A Slivnick; Alexander L Wallner; Ajay Vallakati; Vien T Truong; Wojciech Mazur; Mohamed B Elamin; Matthew S Tong; Subha V Raman; Karolina M Zareba Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 2.357