Impact of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance on the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Noncompaction-A 15-Year Experience.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) on the diagnosis in patients with known or suspected left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC). We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 12,811 consecutive patients who had CMR studies between 2008 and 2022 in a large tertiary center. We included patients referred for CMR because of known or suspected LVNC. The study sample consisted of 333 patients, 193 (58.0%) male, median age 39.0 (26.8-51.0) years. Among 74 patients fulfilling the echocardiographic LVNC criteria, the diagnosis was confirmed in 54 (73.0%) cases. In 259 patients with ultrasound-based suspicion of LVNC, CMR led to an LVNC diagnosis in 82 (31.7%) patients. In both groups, CMR led to a new diagnosis in 89 cases (10 (13.5%) and 79 (30.5%)). A quantity of 38 (5.4%) patients were diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy, 11 (1.4%) patients were diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and 21 (4.1%) patients were diagnosed with unclassified cardiomyopathy. In four patients with suspected LVNC, a myocardial trabeculation was a secondary result of dilatation due to coronary heart disease. In five cases, valvular heart disease was found. Four patients were diagnosed with athlete's heart. Other diagnoses (arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, peripartum cardiomyopathy, hypokinetic non-dilated cardiomyopathy, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, and ventricular septum defect) were found in six patients. CMR is a valuable tool in the evaluation of cardiac muscle and in differentiating LVNC and other cardiac diseases.

Role of cardiac magnetic resonance in heart failure of initially unknown etiology: A 10-year observational study.

BACKGROUND: The heart failure (HF) population is estimated to be 64.3 million people worldwide and continues to grow. Identifying the underlying cause of HF is crucial for patient management and prognosis. AIMS: We sought to evaluate the role of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to identify the etiology of HF and to evaluate the impact of CMR on diagnosis and patient management. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 8630 consecutive patients referred for CMR in a large tertiary center between 2008 and 2017 (10 years). In this study, we only included patients referred for CMR due to HF of unknown etiology whose diagnostic workup had not revealed suspicion of any specific cardiac disease leading to HF. We also analyzed changes in patient management that were guided by the CMR findings, which were defined as changes in treatment and/or the necessity of further tests. RESULTS: The study sample included 243 patients: 173 (71.2%) patients were male, and the mean (SD) age was 44.0 (15.2) years. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced CMR. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was detected in 74.9% of cases. In 94 patients (38.7%), CMR led to a new diagnosis. In 41 patients (16.9%), patient management was changed by CMR. The latter group comprised patients with coronary artery disease, amyloidosis, valvular disease, and cardiomyopathies other than dilated, namely hypertrophic, restrictive, and left ventricular noncompaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our study strongly suggests that CMR imaging is a valuable tool for determining the etiology of HF and affects patient management.

Sudden cardiac death risk in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: comparison between echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging.

In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients, left ventricular (LV) maximal wall thickness (MWT) is one of the most important factors determining sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk. In a large unselected sample of HCM patients, we aimed to simulate what changes would occur in the calculated SCD risk according to the European HCM Risk-SCD calculator when MWT measured using echocardiography was changed to MWT measured using MRI. All consecutive patients with HCM who underwent cardiac MRI were included. MWT measured with echocardiography and MRI were compared, and 5-year SCD risk according to the HCM Risk-SCD calculator was computed using four different models. The final population included 673 patients [389 (57.8%) males, median age 50 years, interquartile range (36-60)]. The median MWT was lower measured by echocardiography than by MRI [20 (17-24) mm vs 21 (18-24) mm; p < 0.0001]. There was agreement between echocardiography and MRI in the measurement of maximal LV wall thickness in 96 patients (14.3%). The largest differences between echo and MRI were - 13 mm and + 9 mm. The differences in MWT by echocardiography and MRI translated to a maximal difference of 8.33% in the absolute 5-year risk of SCD, i.e., the echocardiography-based risk was 8.33% lower than the MRI-based estimates. Interestingly, 13.7% of patients would have been reclassified into different SCD risk categories if MRI had been used to measure MWT instead of echocardiography. In conclusion, although there was high general intermodality agreement between echocardiography and MRI in the MWT measurements, the differences in MWT translated to significant differences in the 5-year risk of SCD.