Key result
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance demonstrated diagnostic discordance with Transthoracic Echocardiography in 74% (n=194) of patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure.
Why the study?
The incremental diagnostic value and sub-phenotyping capability of CMR compared with TTE in patients with elevated LVFP needed evaluation.
Does Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) improve diagnostic precision and sub-phenotyping compared to Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) in patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure?
Observational
No
Does Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) improve diagnostic precision and sub-phenotyping compared to Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) in patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure?
CMR significantly improves diagnostic precision and aetiological sub-phenotyping over TTE in patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure, frequently identifying HFpEF and IHD in cases where TTE is normal or non-diagnostic.
Should not yet change TTE-first practice; hypothesis-generating for CMR sub-phenotyping in elevated LV filling pressure.
Objectives To evaluate the incremental diagnostic value and sub-phenotyping capability of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) compared with Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) in patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). Design Prospective registry study. [Results from ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05114785 ] Setting A single NHS hospital in the UK. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the rate of diagnostic discordance between TTE and CMR. Secondary outcomes included the characterisation of specific pathologies identified by CMR where TTE was normal, non-diagnostic or provided a non-specific diagnosis. Results CMR demonstrated diagnostic discordance with TTE in 74% (n=194) of cases. In patients with a normal TTE (n=54), CMR identified heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in 46% (n=25) and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in 19% (n=10). For non-diagnostic TTE cases (n=15), CMR detected HFpEF in 53.3% (n=8) and IHD in 26.7% (n=4). Among those with non-specific left ventricular hypertrophy on TTE (n=47), CMR revealed HFpEF in 45% (n=21) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 34% (n=16). Conclusions CMR markedly improves diagnostic precision and sub-phenotyping in patients with elevated LVFP, identifying key conditions like HFpEF, IHD and specific cardiomyopathies that TTE frequently misses. These findings highlight CMR’s critical role as a complementary imaging tool for refining diagnoses and informing management strategies in cardiovascular conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bana et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Elevated left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) vs. Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) was evaluated on Rate of diagnostic discordance between TTE and CMR. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance demonstrated diagnostic discordance with Transthoracic Echocardiography in 74% (n=194) of patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: