Maximal Wall Thickness Measurement in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Biomarker Variability and its Impact on Clinical Care.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to define the variability of maximal wall thickness (MWT) measurements across modalities and predict its impact on care in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). BACKGROUND: Left ventricular MWT measured by echocardiography or cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) contributes to the diagnosis of HCM, stratifies risk, and guides key decisions, including whether to place an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: A 20-center global network provided paired echocardiographic and CMR data sets from patients with HCM, from which 17 paired data sets of the highest quality were selected. These were presented as 7 randomly ordered pairs (at 6 cardiac conferences) to experienced readers who report HCM imaging in their daily practice, and their MWT caliper measurements were captured. The impact of measurement variability on ICD insertion decisions was estimated in 769 separately recruited multicenter patients with HCM using the European Society of Cardiology algorithm for 5-year risk for sudden cardiac death. RESULTS: MWT analysis was completed by 70 readers (from 6 continents; 91% with >5 years' experience). Seventy-nine percent and 68% scored echocardiographic and CMR image quality as excellent. For both modalities (echocardiographic and then CMR results), intramodality inter-reader MWT percentage variability was large (range -59% to 117% [SD ±20%] and -61% to 52% [SD ±11%], respectively). Agreement between modalities was low (SE of measurement 4.8 mm; 95% CI 4.3 mm-5.2 mm; r = 0.56 [modest correlation]). In the multicenter HCM cohort, this estimated echocardiographic MWT percentage variability (±20%) applied to the European Society of Cardiology algorithm reclassified risk in 19.5% of patients, which would have led to inappropriate ICD decision making in 1 in 7 patients with HCM (8.7% would have had ICD placement recommended despite potential low risk, and 6.8% would not have had ICD placement recommended despite intermediate or high risk). CONCLUSIONS: Using the best available images and experienced readers, MWT as a biomarker in HCM has a high degree of inter-reader variability and should be applied with caution as part of decision making for ICD insertion. Better standardization efforts in HCM recommendations by current governing societies are needed to improve clinical decision making in patients with HCM.

T1 mapping performance and measurement repeatability: results from the multi-national T1 mapping standardization phantom program (T1MES).

BACKGROUND: The T1 Mapping and Extracellular volume (ECV) Standardization (T1MES) program explored T1 mapping quality assurance using a purpose-developed phantom with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européenne (CE) regulatory clearance. We report T1 measurement repeatability across centers describing sequence, magnet, and vendor performance. METHODS: Phantoms batch-manufactured in August 2015 underwent 2 years of structural imaging, B0 and B1, and "reference" slow T1 testing. Temperature dependency was evaluated by the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the German Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt. Center-specific T1 mapping repeatability (maximum one scan per week to minimum one per quarter year) was assessed over mean 358 (maximum 1161) days on 34 1.5 T and 22 3 T magnets using multiple T1 mapping sequences. Image and temperature data were analyzed semi-automatically. Repeatability of serial T1 was evaluated in terms of coefficient of variation (CoV), and linear mixed models were constructed to study the interplay of some of the known sources of T1 variation. RESULTS: Over 2 years, phantom gel integrity remained intact (no rips/tears), B0 and B1 homogenous, and "reference" T1 stable compared to baseline (% change at 1.5 T, 1.95 ± 1.39%; 3 T, 2.22 ± 1.44%). Per degrees Celsius, 1.5 T, T1 (MOLLI 5s(3s)3s) increased by 11.4 ms in long native blood tubes and decreased by 1.2 ms in short post-contrast myocardium tubes. Agreement of estimated T1 times with "reference" T1 was similar across Siemens and Philips CMR systems at both field strengths (adjusted R2 ranges for both field strengths, 0.99-1.00). Over 1 year, many 1.5 T and 3 T sequences/magnets were repeatable with mean CoVs < 1 and 2% respectively. Repeatability was narrower for 1.5 T over 3 T. Within T1MES repeatability for native T1 was narrow for several sequences, for example, at 1.5 T, Siemens MOLLI 5s(3s)3s prototype number 448B (mean CoV = 0.27%) and Philips modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) 3s(3s)5s (CoV 0.54%), and at 3 T, Philips MOLLI 3b(3s)5b (CoV 0.33%) and Siemens shortened MOLLI (ShMOLLI) prototype 780C (CoV 0.69%). After adjusting for temperature and field strength, it was found that the T1 mapping sequence and scanner software version (both P < 0.001 at 1.5 T and 3 T), and to a lesser extent the scanner model (P = 0.011, 1.5 T only), had the greatest influence on T1 across multiple centers. CONCLUSION: The T1MES CE/FDA approved phantom is a robust quality assurance device. In a multi-center setting, T1 mapping had performance differences between field strengths, sequences, scanner software versions, and manufacturers. However, several specific combinations of field strength, sequence, and scanner are highly repeatable, and thus, have potential to provide standardized assessment of T1 times for clinical use, although temperature correction is required for native T1 tubes at least.