Key result
Quantitative CMR mapping shows weak to moderate positive correlation with NT-proBNP and length of stay.
Why the study?
The relationship between CMR mapping parameters and bedside markers of acute in-hospital disease severity in acute myocarditis remains less well defined.
Do quantitative CMR mapping parameters correlate with markers of acute in-hospital severity in adults with suspected acute myocarditis?
Observational (n=67)
No
Do quantitative CMR mapping parameters correlate with markers of acute in-hospital severity in adults with suspected acute myocarditis?
Effect estimate: ρ = 0.40-0.60 for NT-proBNP; ρ = 0.34-0.47 for length of stay
Quantitative CMR mapping parameters (T1, T2, ECV) correlate with biomarkers of myocardial stress and in-hospital severity in patients with acute myocarditis, supporting their use as complementary markers.
Associations between CMR mapping and acute severity markers are hypothesis-generating; prospective studies needed before clinical adoption in myocarditis.
Background Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is central to the non-invasive assessment of suspected myocarditis. Although the diagnostic and longer-term prognostic value of CMR mapping has been established, its relationship with bedside markers of acute in-hospital disease severity remains less well defined. In this exploratory study, we evaluated associations between quantitative CMR tissue markers and laboratory as well as clinical markers of acute severity. Methods In this retrospective single-center study, adults with clinically suspected acute (peri-)myocarditis who underwent comprehensive CMR between October 2018 and March 2024 were analyzed. CMR comprised cine imaging, edema-sensitive sequences, native T1 and T2 mapping, extracellular volume (ECV) fraction mapping, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Clinical data were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records. CMR datasets were evaluated in consensus by two readers with six and nine years of CMR experience (Blinded for submission), who were blinded to clinical and outcome data. Associations were assessed using Spearman correlation with false-discovery-rate correction; NT-proBNP was available in 34/67 patients, peak hsTropT in 64/67 patients, and LGE extent in 53/67 patients. Results Sixty-seven patients (31.6 ± 13.0 years; 14/67 [20.9 %] female) were included. Global and maximum native T1, T2, and ECV fraction showed weak-to-moderate positive correlations with NT-proBNP (ρ = 0.40–0.60) and length of stay (ρ = 0.34–0.47). Left ventricular ejection fraction showed inverse correlations with maximum native T1, global and maximum T2, and LGE extent (ρ = -0.28 to −0.39). LGE extent correlated with peak high-sensitivity troponin T (ρ = 0.35) and length of stay (ρ = 0.35). Cardiogenic shock was associated with higher mapping values (ρ = 0.33–0.40); this exploratory finding was based on only six events and should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions In this exploratory single-center cohort, quantitative CMR mapping abnormalities paralleled biomarkers of myocardial stress and injury and length-of-stay-based markers of acute in-hospital severity in patients with suspected myocarditis. These hypothesis-generating findings support native T1, T2, and ECV fraction mapping as complementary markers within standardized CMR assessment. Prospective, multivariable studies with longitudinal follow-up are needed to define their independent prognostic value and clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaya et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute (peri-)myocarditis (n=67). Quantitative CMR mapping (native T1, T2, ECV fraction, LGE) was evaluated on Correlation between CMR mapping parameters and NT-proBNP / length of stay (ρ = 0.40-0.60 for NT-proBNP; ρ = 0.34-0.47 for length of stay). Quantitative CMR mapping parameters (native T1, T2, and ECV fraction) showed weak-to-moderate positive correlations with NT-proBNP (ρ=0.40-0.60) and length of stay (ρ=0.34-0.47).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: