Key result
Soluble ST2 fails to correlate with myocardial scar or LV parameters on 3T CMRI.
Why the study?
The utility of soluble ST2 for detecting myocardial scar and inflammation in patients with suspected CAD or myocarditis was uncertain.
Does soluble ST2 correlate with myocardial scar and inflammation detected by 3T CMRI in patients with suspected CAD or myocarditis?
Observational (n=156)
Does soluble ST2 correlate with myocardial scar and inflammation detected by 3T CMRI in patients with suspected CAD or myocarditis?
Soluble ST2 levels do not correlate with myocardial scar or left ventricular parameters on 3T CMRI, limiting its utility as a standalone marker for these pathomorphologic changes.
sST2 shows no CMRI correlation with fibrosis or scar; leaves open its role beyond HF risk prediction in suspected CAD or myocarditis.
OBJECTIVE: The soluble form of ST2 (sST2) is a novel laboratory parameter for cardiac risk prediction, and over the past years, several studies have tried to evaluate its utility, especially in the management of heart failure. We investigated whether increased serum levels of sST2 show a characteristic pathomorphologic pattern in 3-Tesla cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI). METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six patients referred to 3T CMRI due to suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or myocarditis were prospectively enrolled in the study. Ninety patients were diagnosed with CAD, 22 patients with myocarditis, and 44 patients, who constituted the reference group, showed no pathologic CMRI pattern. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the sST2 values for patients in the reference group and patients with CAD or myocarditis. The sST2 concentration showed a weak correlation with the NYHA functional class (P = 0.002, r = 0.22), but correlation of sST2 and LGE, left ventricular parameters, and LVEF could not be seen. In contrast NT-proBNP was positively correlated to left ventricular parameters, LGE, and NYHA class function (P < 0.05). Additionally, it showed an inverse relationship to LVEF (P < 0.001, r = - 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Soluble ST2 is not able to detect myocardial scar and should not be used alone as a parameter for detection of inflammation and myocardial scar formation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quick et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Suspected coronary artery disease or myocarditis (n=156). Soluble ST2 (sST2) vs. Reference group (no pathologic CMRI pattern) was evaluated on Correlation of sST2 with pathomorphologic pattern in 3T CMRI (LGE, left ventricular parameters, LVEF). Soluble ST2 concentration did not correlate with myocardial scar or left ventricular parameters on 3T CMRI, though it showed a weak correlation with NYHA functional class (r=0.22, P=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: