Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the phenotype of left ventricular non-compaction in an asymptomatic 54-year-old female after echocardiography and SPECT were inconclusive.
Why the study?
LVNC is a rare cardiac condition with diagnostic challenges, highlighting the importance of additional cardiovascular imaging technologies in the diagnostic work-up.
Case Report (n=1)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is a crucial tool for diagnosing left ventricular non-compaction when initial echocardiography and SPECT findings are non-specific.
Left ventricular non‐compaction (LVNC), or “spongy myocardium”, is a rare cardiac morphological condition detected in 0.05–0.26% of all adults undergoing transthoracic echocardiography, with an increasing prevalence in the recent years. Our clinical case of a 54‐year‐old asymptomatic female illustrates the importance of additional cardiovascular imaging technologies in the diagnostic work‐up of the patient. The patient was referred to a cardiologist due to a left bundle branch block found on routine electrocardiogram examination. Transthoracic echocardiography did not reveal any specific changes, although a single photon emission computed tomography scan revealed a fixed myocardial perfusion defect. This defect was regarded as non‐typical for inducible myocardial ischaemia and indicative of a non‐specific cardiomyopathy. Further investigation using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the phenotype of LVNC. JRCD 2018; 3 (8): 271–274
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Orda et al. (2019) conducted a case report in Left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) (n=1). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging vs. Transthoracic echocardiography and SPECT was evaluated on Diagnosis of LVNC. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the phenotype of left ventricular non-compaction in an asymptomatic 54-year-old female after echocardiography and SPECT were inconclusive.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: