Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CMR-based T1-mapping, ECV measurement, and longitudinal strain analysis in patients with cardiac amyloidosis versus hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Does CMR-based T1-mapping and ECV measurement improve diagnostic accuracy compared to longitudinal strain analysis for differentiating cardiac amyloidosis from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Does CMR-based T1-mapping and ECV measurement improve diagnostic accuracy compared to longitudinal strain analysis for differentiating cardiac amyloidosis from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
CMR-based native T1-mapping and ECV measurement provide superior diagnostic accuracy compared to longitudinal strain analysis for differentiating cardiac amyloidosis from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
T1-mapping and ECV may outperform strain for CA vs HCM differentiation; leaves open need for prospective validation before broader adoption.
Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an infiltrative disease. In the present study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based T1-mapping and subsequent extracellular volume fraction (ECV) measurement and longitudinal strain analysis in the same patients with (a) biopsy-proven cardiac amyloidosis (CA) and (b) hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). N = 30 patients with CA, N = 20 patients with HCM and N = 15 healthy control patients without relevant cardiac disease underwent dedicated CMR studies. The CMR protocol included standard sequences for cine-imaging, native and post-contrast T1-mapping and late-gadolinium-enhancement. ECV measurements were based on pre- and post-contrast T1-mapping images. Feature-tracking analysis was used to calculate 3D left ventricular longitudinal strain (LV-LS) in basal, mid and apical short-axis cine-images and to assess the presence of relative apical sparing. Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis revealed an area-under-the-curve regarding the differentiation of CA from HCM of 0.984 for native T1-mapping (p < 0.001), of 0.985 for ECV (p < 0.001) and only 0.740 for the "apical-to-(basal + midventricular)"-ratio of LV-LS (p = 0.012). A multivariable logistical regression analysis showed that ECV was the only statistically significant predictor of CA when compared to the parameter LV-LS or to the parameter "apical-to-(basal + midventricular)" LV-RLS-ratio. Native T1-mapping and ECV measurement are both superior to longitudinal strain measurement (with assessment of relative apical sparing) regarding the appropriate diagnosis of CA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Korthals et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: