Key result
CMR reliably detects acute necrotic, intermediate thrombotic, and late fibrotic stages of eosinophilic myocarditis.
Why the study?
Echocardiography is the initial diagnostic modality for eosinophilic myocarditis but endomyocardial biopsy may miss diagnosis if the involved area is not sampled, while CMR can detect all stages of EM.
Does CMR improve the detection of eosinophilic myocarditis stages compared to echocardiography or biopsy?
Does CMR improve the detection of eosinophilic myocarditis stages compared to echocardiography or biopsy?
CMR is a reliable imaging modality for detecting all stages of eosinophilic myocarditis, overcoming the potential sampling errors associated with endomyocardial biopsy.
CMR may detect all EM stages when EMB misses lesions; leaves open prospective validation of diagnostic algorithms.
•EM involves acute necrotic, intermediate thrombotic, and late fibrotic stages.•Echocardiography is the initial modality for the diagnosis of EM.•EMB could miss the diagnosis if the area involved is not biopsied.•CMR reliably detects all three stages of EM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allderdice et al. (2018) studied this question. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging reliably detects the acute necrotic, intermediate thrombotic, and late fibrotic stages of eosinophilic myocarditis.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: