Key result
DECT correlates strongly with CMR for detecting myocardial inflammation in acute myocarditis.
Why the study?
CMR is the primary non-invasive method for evaluating myocardial inflammation but has several drawbacks, prompting evaluation of the efficacy and feasibility of DECT compared with CMR in acute myocarditis.
Does dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) accurately detect myocardial inflammation compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with acute myocarditis?
Observational (n=22)
Blinded to clinical data
No
Does dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) accurately detect myocardial inflammation compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with acute myocarditis?
DECT with iodine mapping strongly correlates with CMR in detecting acute myocarditis, providing a viable alternative imaging modality that can simultaneously assess coronary arteries.
DECT may offer a CMR alternative for acute myocarditis inflammation assessment; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before adoption.
PURPOSE: The inflammation of the heart muscle is referred to as acute myocarditis. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has become the primary method for a non-invasive assessment of myocardial inflammation. However, there are several drawbacks of CMR. During the last decade, dual energy computed tomography (DECT) has been used in cardiac imaging. The current study aims to assess the efficacy and feasibility of DECT in acute myocarditis and compare the results to CMR. METHODS: This prospective study included patients who had myocarditis but no coronary artery pathology. Two observers evaluated the patients for acute myocarditis using DECT and CMR. CMR was performed on 22 patients within 24 hours of DECT, which was administered within 12 hours following the onset of chest pain. Inter-observer agreement was tested with Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and Spearman's correlation was used to examine the possible correlations. A P value of <0.050 was accepted as statistically significant. RESULTS: The DECT and CMR agreement was significant for transmural diagnoses, excellent for subepicardial and intramyocardial diagnoses, and perfect for nodular and band-like patterns. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that the dark areas on the color-coded iodine map created with DECT were strongly correlated with CMR in acute cases of myocarditis. In addition, DECT is a robust imaging method that can also be used in the diagnosis of acute myocarditis. Furthermore, it provides information about coronary arteries faster and more reliably than magnetic resonance imaging without any limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kantarcı et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute myocarditis (n=22). Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was evaluated on Agreement and correlation between DECT and CMR for the diagnosis of acute myocarditis based on involved segments, anatomic location, and pattern (p=<0.001). Dual-energy computed tomography showed a strong and statistically significant correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for detecting myocardial inflammation in acute myocarditis (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: