Ventricular Myocardial Fat: An Unexpected Biomarker for Long-term Survival?

PURPOSE: To examine the association between myocardial fat, a poorly understood finding frequently observed on non-contrast CT, and all-cause mortality in patients with and without a history of prior MI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort from a diverse urban academic center was derived from chronic myocardial infarction (MI) patients (n = 265) and three age-matched patients without MI (n = 690) who underwent non-contrast chest CT between 1 January 2005-31 December 2008. CT images were reviewed for left and right ventricular fat. Electronic records identified clinical variables. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses assessed the association between myocardial fat and all-cause mortality. The net reclassification improvement assessed the utility of adding myocardial fat to traditional risk prediction models. RESULTS: Mortality was 40.1% for the no MI and 71.7% for the MI groups (median follow-up, 6.8 years; mean age, 73.7 ± 10.6 years). In the no MI group, 25.7% had LV and 49.9% RV fat. In the MI group, 32.8% had LV and 42.3% RV fat. LV and RV fat was highly associated (OR 5.3, p < 0.001). Ventricular fat was not associated with cardiovascular risk factors. Myocardial fat was associated with a reduction in the adjusted hazard of death for both the no MI (25%, p = 0.04) and the MI group (31%, p = 0.018). Myocardial fat resulted in the correct reclassification of 22% for the no MI group versus the Charlson score or calcium score (p = 0.004) and 47% for the MI group versus the Charlson score (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with myocardial fat have better survival, regardless of MI status, suggesting that myocardial fat is a beneficial biomarker and may improve risk stratification. KEY POINTS: • Myocardial fat is commonly found on chest CT, yet is poorly understood • Myocardial fat is associated with better survival in patients with and without prior MI and is not associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors • This finding may provide clinically meaningful prognostic value in the risk stratification of patients.

Patent foramen ovale in patients with pulmonary embolism: A prognostic factor on CT pulmonary angiography?

BACKGROUND: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) represents a risk factor for mortality, but this has not been evaluated for CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). The purpose of the present study was to assess the relationship between PFO and mortality in patients with acute PE diagnosed on CTPA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 268 adults [173 women, mean age 61 (range 22-98) years] diagnosed with acute PE on non-ECG-gated 64-slice CTPA in 2012 at our medical center. The images were reviewed for PFO by a panel of cardiothoracic radiologists with an average of 11 years of experience (range 1-25 years). CT signs of right heart strain and PE level were noted. Transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), when available (n = 207), were reviewed for PFO by a cardiologist with subspecialty training in advanced imaging and with 3 years of experience. The main outcome was 30-day mortality. Fischer's exact test was utilized to compare mortality. RESULTS: PFO prevalence on CTPA was 22% (58/268) and 4% (9/207) on TTE. Overall 30-day mortality was 6% (16/268), 9% (5/58) for patients with PFO and 5% (11/210) for those without (p = 0.35). CT signs of right heart strain trended with higher mortality, but statistically significant only for hepatic vein contrast reflux [14% (6/44) vs 4% (10/224), p = 0.03]; right ventricular (RV) to left ventricular (LV) diameter ratio >1 [8% (13/156) vs RV:LV ≤ 1 3% (3/112), p = 0.07], septal bowing [10% (4/42) vs without 5% (12/226), p = 0.30]. CONCLUSION: PFO was demonstrated on CTPA in a proportion similar to the known population prevalence, while routine TTE was less sensitive. Mortality was non-significantly higher in patients with acute PE and PFO in this moderate-sized study. A larger study to answer this clinically important question is worthwhile.