Key result
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging identified left ventricular hypertrophy in 3 (6%) patients with previously normal echocardiography, revealing thickness in the anterolateral LV free wall measuring 17 to 20 mm, thus assisting in a new diagnosis of HCM.
Why the study?
Does CMR afford greater accuracy than 2D echocardiography in establishing the diagnosis and assessing the magnitude of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with suspected or confirmed HCM?
Population
Patients suspected of having hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or with a confirmed diagnosis
Comparison
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMR) vs Two-dimensional echocardiography
Design
Cross-sectional, blinded fashion
Authors
Loading...
CMR may detect HCM missed by echocardiography in 6% of cases; leaves open whether routine use improves diagnosis or outcomes.
Does CMR afford greater accuracy than 2D echocardiography in establishing the diagnosis and assessing the magnitude of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with suspected or confirmed HCM?
Absolute Event Rate: 22.5% vs 21.7%
p-value: p=0.21
CMR can identify regions of LV hypertrophy, particularly in the anterolateral free wall, that are missed by standard 2D echocardiography, allowing for the diagnosis of HCM in an important minority of patients.
Rickers et al. (2005) studied Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (n=48). Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Comparison of maximum left ventricular wall thickness between CMR and echocardiography (p=0.21). Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging identified left ventricular hypertrophy in 3 (6%) patients with previously normal echocardiography, revealing thickness in the anterolateral LV free wall measuring 17 to 20 mm, thus assisting in a new diagnosis of HCM.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: