Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Left Ventricular Noncompaction in Patients Referred for Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Presence of prominent left ventricular trabeculation satisfying criteria for left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) on routine cardiac magnetic resonance examination is frequently encountered; however, the clinical and prognostic significance of these findings remain elusive. This registry aimed to assess LVNC prevalence by 4 current criteria and to prospectively evaluate an association between diagnosis of LVNC by these criteria and adverse events. METHODS AND RESULTS: There were 700 patients referred for cardiac magnetic resonance: 42% were women, median age was 70 years (range, 45-71 years), mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 51% (±17%), and 32% had late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance. The cohort underwent diagnostic assessment for LVNC by 4 separate imaging criteria-referenced by their authors as Petersen, Stacey, Jacquier, and Captur, with LVNC prevalence of 39%, 23%, 25% and 3%, respectively. Primary clinical outcome was combined end point of time to death, ischemic stroke, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure hospitalization. Secondary clinical outcomes were (1) all-cause mortality and (2) time to the first occurrence of any of the following events: cardiac death, ischemic stroke, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, or heart failure hospitalization. During a median follow-up of 7 years, there were no statistically significant differences in assessed outcomes noted between patients with and without LVNC irrespective of the applied criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Current criteria for the diagnosis of LVNC leads to highly variable disease prevalence in patients referred for cardiac magnetic resonance. The diagnosis of LVNC, by any current criteria, was not associated with adverse clinical events on nearly 7 years of follow-up. Limited conclusions can be made for Captur criteria due to low observed prevalence.

New role of mechanical assist device as bridge to transplant: USA perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac transplant remains the gold standard of care for patients with end-stage heart failure. Unfortunately, due to the limited availability of donor hearts in the United States, not all eligible candidates are able to be transplanted. Since the introduction of mechanical assist devices for the treatment of advanced heart failure, patients gain a significant survival benefit while awaiting transplant. With rapidly evolving technology, it is important to appreciate the advances in the current use of mechanical assist devices. RECENT FINDINGS: Following a comprehensive analysis of novel therapies in end-stage heart failure, there is an enhancement in quality of life and life expectancy following implantation of left ventricular (LV) assist devices (LVADs). When implanted in suitable patients as bridge-to-transplant or 'destination therapy', recipients demonstrate superior outcomes and survival compared with those who remain on optimal medical therapy. SUMMARY: The use of LV assist devices (LVADs) as bridge to transplantation has gained popularity over the last decade. It is recognized as an integral treatment modality in end-stage heart failure to those awaiting heart transplantation. When implanted in the appropriately chosen patient, it is superior to medical treatment alone and has shown noninferiority to heart transplantation while allowing for optimal functional status and preservation of end organ function.

Right atrial volume by cardiovascular magnetic resonance predicts mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Right Atrial Volume Index (RAVI) measured by echocardiography is an independent predictor of morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study is to evaluate the predictive value of RAVI assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF and to assess its additive contribution to the validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic heart failure (MAGGIC) score. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 243 patients (mean age 60 ± 15; 33% women) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% measured by CMR. Right atrial volume was calculated based on area in two- and four -chamber views using validated equation, followed by indexing to body surface area. MAGGIC score was calculated using online calculator. During mean period of 2.4 years 33 patients (14%) died. The mean RAVI was 53 ± 26 ml/m2; significantly larger in patients with than without an event (78.7±29 ml/m2 vs. 48±22 ml/m2, p<0.001). RAVI (per ml/m2) was an independent predictor of mortality [HR = 1.03 (1.01-1.04), p = 0.001]. RAVI has a greater discriminatory ability than LVEF, left atrial volume index and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) (C-statistic 0.8±0.08 vs 0.55±0.1, 0.62±0.11, 0.68±0.11, respectively, all p<0.02). The addition of RAVI to the MAGGIC score significantly improves risk stratification (integrated discrimination improvement 13%, and category-free net reclassification improvement 73%, both p<0.001). CONCLUSION: RAVI by CMR is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with HFrEF. The addition of RAVI to MAGGIC score improves mortality risk stratification.

Comparison of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with stress nuclear perfusion for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress CMR) vs stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. BACKGROUND: SPECT imaging is the most utilized outpatient procedure in the United States. The diagnostic accuracy of SPECT can be limited by soft tissue attenuation and low spatial resolution. Stress CMR has much higher spatial resolution and without the susceptibility to soft tissue attenuation. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients without a history of CAD presenting to the ED with chest pain were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent both stress CMR and stress SPECT imaging within 12 hours of presentation. Both the stress imaging tests were interpreted immediately for clinical purposes and coronary angiography was performed if either was abnormal. Patients were considered to have significant CAD if identified by angiography (≥50%) or if a cardiac event (cardiac death, myocardial infarction or revascularization) occurred during follow-up (mean 2.6 ± 1.1 years). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were referred for coronary angiography; 29 due to a positive stress test and eight patients for persistent chest pain despite two negative stress tests. There were 22 patients who had significant CAD (≥50%). The remaining patients were followed for 2.6 ± 1.1 years. At the conclusion of the follow-up period, there were four clinical events. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CMR are 85%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of stress SPECT are 84%, 91%, and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Stress CMR has similar diagnostic accuracy as stress SPECT in diagnosis of CAD.