Why the study?
Administration of gadolinium-contrast can cause problems in cardiac amyloidosis patients with impaired renal function, prompting evaluation of CMR-TT to distinguish cardiac amyloidosis from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy without contrast.
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance tissue tracking (CMR-TT) accurately distinguish between cardiac amyloidosis and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy without the need for gadolinium contrast?
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance tissue tracking (CMR-TT) accurately distinguish between cardiac amyloidosis and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy without the need for gadolinium contrast?
CMR tissue tracking using radial and circumferential strain ratios of apex to base can reliably distinguish cardiac amyloidosis from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy without requiring gadolinium contrast.
May differentiate CA from HCM without gadolinium; hypothesis-generating for contrast-sparing protocols in renal impairment.
Background Administration of gadolinium-contrast can cause problems in cardiac amyloidosis (CA) patients with impaired renal function. Purpose To compare patterns of cardiovascular magnetic resonance tissue tracking (CMR-TT) for CA and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and to assess the feasibility of CMR-TT to distinguish between these diseases without administration of gadolinium-contrast. Material and Methods Included were 54 patients with biopsy-proven CA, 40 patients with HCM, and 30 healthy people. We calculated strain ratio of apex to base (SRAB) in the left ventricle (LV) using radial (R), circumferential (C), and longitudinal (L) strain from CMR-TT. The LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and the ratio of septal to posterior wall at basal level were also calculated. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) image analysis was performed for differential diagnosis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) comparisons were used. Results All SRAB values were significantly different between CA and HCM (all P < 0.001). AUC values for parameters were 0.806 for LVEF, 0.815 for ratio of wall thickness, 0.944 for the LGE pattern, 0.898 for SRAB R , 0.880 for SRAB C , and 0.805 for SRAB L . AUCs for the LGE pattern were significantly higher than for LVEF, ratio of wall thickness and SRAB L (all P < 0.008). No significant differences were seen between AUCs for the LGE pattern, SRAB R , and SRAB C (all P > 0.109). Conclusion SRAB R and SRAB C were reliable parameters for distinguishing between CA and HCM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: