Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance changed the initial echocardiographic diagnostic suspicion of left ventricular hypertrophy in 42.7% of patients (p<0.0001).
Why the study?
Although TTE and ECG are first-line examinations for LVH, cardiac magnetic resonance accurately defines LVH type, extent, and severity, prompting evaluation of its diagnostic and prognostic role.
Does cardiac magnetic resonance improve the differential diagnosis and prognostic stratification in patients with echocardiographic and/or ECG signs of left ventricular hypertrophy?
Observational (n=300)
Does cardiac magnetic resonance improve the differential diagnosis and prognostic stratification in patients with echocardiographic and/or ECG signs of left ventricular hypertrophy?
p-value: p=<0.0001
CMR significantly improves the differential diagnosis of LVH compared to echocardiography and ECG, leading to diagnostic reclassification in nearly half of patients and better prognostic stratification.
CMR may refine LVH diagnosis beyond echocardiography; leaves open effects on outcomes and management before changing practice.
Background: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) may be due to different causes, ranging from benign secondary forms to severe cardiomyopathies. Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) and ECG are the first level examination for LVH diagnosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) defines accurately LVH type, extent and severity. Objectives: to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic role of CMR in patients with TTE and/or ECG evidence of LVH. Methods: We performed CMR in 300 consecutive patients with echocardiographic and/or ECG signs of LVH. Results: Overall, 275 patients had TTE evidence of LVH with initial suspicion of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in 132 (44%), cardiac amyloidosis in 41 (14%), hypertensive LVH in 48 (16%), aortic stenosis in 4 (1%), undetermined LVH in 50(16%). The initial echocardiographic diagnostic suspicion of LVH was confirmed in 172 patients (57.3%) and changed in 128 patients (42.7%, p<0.0001): the diagnosis of HCM increased from 44% to 71% of patients; hypertensive and undetermined LVH decreased significantly (respectively to 4% and 5%). CMR allowed a diagnosis in 41 out of 50 (82%) with undetermined LVH at TTE. CMR also identified HCM in 17 out of 25 patients with apparently normal echo but with ECG criteria for LVH. Finally, the reclassification of the diagnosis by CMR was associated with a change of survival risk of patients: after CMR reclassification no events occurred in patients with undetermined or hypertensive LVH. Conclusions: CMR changed echocardiographic suspicion in almost half of patients with LVH. In the subgroup of patient with abnormal ECG, CMR identified LVH (particularly HCM) in 80% of patients. This study highlights the indication of CMR to better characterize the type, extent and severity of LVH detected at echocardiography and suspected with ECG.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aquaro et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Left ventricular hypertrophy (n=300). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) vs. Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) and/or ECG was evaluated on Change in initial echocardiographic diagnostic suspicion of LVH (p=<0.0001). Cardiac magnetic resonance changed the initial echocardiographic diagnostic suspicion of left ventricular hypertrophy in 42.7% of patients (p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: