Show simple item record

Comparison of myocardial fibrosis quantification methods by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for risk stratification of patients with suspected myocarditis

dc.contributor.authorGräni, Christoph
dc.contributor.authorEichhorn, Christian
dc.contributor.authorBière, Loïc
dc.contributor.authorKaneko, Kyoichi
dc.contributor.authorMurthy, Venkatesh L
dc.contributor.authorAgarwal, Vikram
dc.contributor.authorAghayev, Ayaz
dc.contributor.authorSteigner, Michael
dc.contributor.authorBlankstein, Ron
dc.contributor.authorJerosch-Herold, Michael
dc.contributor.authorKwong, Raymond Y
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-03T04:14:27Z
dc.date.available2019-03-03T04:14:27Z
dc.date.issued2019-02-28
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2019 Feb 28;21(1):14
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-019-0520-0
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/148145
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Although the presence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is a significant discriminator of events in patients with suspected myocarditis, no data are available on the optimal LGE quantification method. Methods Six hundred seventy consecutive patients (48 ± 16 years, 59% male) with suspected myocarditis were enrolled between 2002 and 2015. We performed LGE quantitation using seven different signal intensity thresholding methods based either on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 standard deviations (SD) above remote myocardium or full width at half maximum (FWHM). In addition, a LGE visual presence score (LGE-VPS) (LGE present/absent in each segment) was assessed. For each of these methods, the strength of association of LGE results with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was determined. Inter-and intra-rater variability using intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) was performed for all methods. Results Ninety-eight (15%) patients experienced a MACE at a medium follow-up of 4.7 years. LGE quantification by FWHM, 2- and 3-SD demonstrated univariable association with MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.02–1.08, p = 0.001; HR 1.02, 95%CI:1.00–1.04; p = 0.001; HR 1.02, 95%CI: 1.00–1.05, p = 0.035, respectively), whereas 4-SD through 7-SD methods did not reach significant association. LGE-VPS also demonstrated association with MACE (HR 1.09, 95%CI: 1.04–1.15, p < 0.001). In the multivariable model, FWHM, 2-SD methods, and LGE-VPS each demonstrated significant association with MACE adjusted to age, sex, BMI and LVEF (adjusted HR of 1.04, 1.02, and 1.07; p = 0.009, p = 0.035; and p = 0.005, respectively). In these, FWHM and LGE-VPS had the highest degrees of inter and intra-rater reproducibility based on their high ICC values. Conclusions FWHM is the optimal semi-automated quantification method in risk-stratifying patients with suspected myocarditis, demonstrating the strongest association with MACE and the highest technical consistency. Visual LGE scoring is a reliable alternative method and is associated with a comparable association with MACE and reproducibility in these patients. Trial registration number NCT03470571 . Registered 13th March 2018. Retrospectively registered.
dc.titleComparison of myocardial fibrosis quantification methods by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for risk stratification of patients with suspected myocarditis
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148145/1/12968_2019_Article_520.pdf
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s).
dc.date.updated2019-03-03T04:14:28Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.