A trabeculated to compact myocardium ratio >2.3 is common in individuals without cardiac disease, suggesting that current cardiac MR criteria for left ventricular noncompaction may be overly sensitive and require re-evaluation.
BACKGROUND: A high degree of noncompacted (trabeculated) myocardium in relationship to compact myocardium (trabeculated to compact myocardium [T/M] ratio >2.3) has been associated with a diagnosis of left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC). The purpose of this study was to determine the normal range of the T/M ratio in a large population-based study and to examine the relationship to demographic and clinical parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: The thickness of trabeculation and the compact myocardium were measured in 8 left ventricular regions on long axis cardiac MR steady-state free precession cine images in 1000 participants (551 women; 68.1±8.9 years) of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis cohort. Of 323 participants without cardiac disease or hypertension and with all regions evaluable, 140 (43%) had a T/M ratio >2.3 in at least 1 region; in 20 of 323 (6%), T/M >2.3 was present in >2 regions. A multivariable linear regression model revealed no association of age, sex, ethnicity, height, and weight with maximum T/M ratio in participants without cardiac disease or hypertension (P>0.05). In the entire cohort (n=1000), left ventricular ejection fraction (β=-0.02/%; P=0.015), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (β=0.01/mL; P<0.0001), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (β=0.01/mL; P<0.001) were associated with maximum T/M ratio in adjusted models, whereas there was no association with hypertension or myocardial infarction (P>0.05). At the apical level, T/M ratios were significantly lower when obtained on short- compared with long-axis images (P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: A ratio of T/M of >2.3 is common in a large population-based cohort. These results suggest re-evaluation of the current cardiac MR criteria for left ventricular noncompaction may be necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawel et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: