Key result
Adding quantitative CMR markers to ESC myocarditis guidelines links high-risk status to ~21-fold higher MACE risk.
Why the study?
External prognostic validation of the 2025 ESC three-tier clinical risk stratification for acute myocarditis, particularly for separating low and intermediate risk, remains limited, and the incremental value of quantitative CMR tissue markers required assessment.
Do quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tissue markers (LGE extent and ECV) improve prognostic discrimination of major adverse cardiac events compared to the original 2025 ESC risk stratification in patients with acute myocarditis?
Cohort (n=319)
Do quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tissue markers (LGE extent and ECV) improve prognostic discrimination of major adverse cardiac events compared to the original 2025 ESC risk stratification in patients with acute myocarditis?
In patients with acute myocarditis, incorporating quantitative CMR markers (LGE extent ≥9.5% and ECV ≥37.5%) significantly improves prognostic risk stratification between low- and intermediate-risk groups compared to the standard 2025 ESC guideline model.
Quantitative CMR markers may refine ESC myocarditis risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Background The 2025 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline proposes a three-tier clinical risk stratification for acute myocarditis. External prognostic validation, particularly for separating low and intermediate risk, remains limited. Purpose To externally validate the 2025 ESC risk stratification and assess whether quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tissue markers improve prognostic discrimination. Methods We retrospectively included 319 patients with CMR-diagnosed acute myocarditis. Major adverse cardiac events were assessed during follow-up (median 3.0 years). We compared the original 2025 ESC model with three modified strategies: Model 1 replaced late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) segment count with quantitative LGE extent (optimal threshold ≥9.5%); Model 2 further incorporated extracellular volume (ECV) (threshold ≥37.5%); Model 3 tested a CMR-only three-tier scheme using ESC-defined left ventricular ejection fraction categories together with dichotomised LGE extent and ECV. Prognostic performance was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression. Results Fifty-seven events occurred (17.9%). In the original ESC model, the high-risk group had higher risk than the low-risk group (hazard ratio 7.13; p=0.004), while the intermediate-risk group was not significantly different from low risk (hazard ratio 1.68; p=0.455). Model 1 improved separation, with higher risk in both intermediate (hazard ratio 4.54; p=0.045) and high-risk groups (hazard ratio 16.15; p<0.001) compared with low risk. Adding ECV (Model 2) enhanced discrimination, with intermediate- and high-risk groups showing markedly higher risk than low risk (HR 6.55 and 20.83; both p≤0.013). The CMR-only strategy (Model 3) provided clear three-tier separation, showing a graded increase in risk from low to intermediate (HR 3.92) and high risk (HR 14.11; both p≤0.002). Conclusion In this external cohort of acute myocarditis, the 2025 ESC scheme reliably identified high-risk patients but showed limited separation between low and intermediate risk. Quantitative LGE extent and ECV improved prognostic stratification and may support a practical CMR-based approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute myocarditis (n=319). Modified 2025 ESC myocarditis risk stratification models incorporating quantitative CMR markers (LGE extent ≥9.5% and ECV ≥37.5%) vs. Original 2025 ESC myocarditis risk stratification model (low-risk reference group) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (HR 20.83, p=≤0.013). Adding quantitative LGE extent and ECV to the 2025 ESC myocarditis model enhanced MACE risk separation for intermediate (HR 6.55) and high-risk (HR 20.83; both p≤0.013) vs low-risk groups.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: