A conventional CMR approach combining cine, T2-weighted, and LGE imaging achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 92% for NSTEMI, which was not significantly different from visual pattern analysis of T1 maps.
Observational (n=60)
Double-blind
No
Does visual pattern analysis of parametric CMR techniques (T1/T2 mapping) provide comparable diagnostic accuracy to conventional CMR techniques in differentiating acute NSTEMI from infarct-like myocarditis?
Visual pattern analysis of native T1 maps provides comparable diagnostic accuracy to conventional combined CMR techniques for differentiating NSTEMI from infarct-like myocarditis, potentially allowing for shorter, contrast-free CMR protocols.
OBJECTIVES: Parametric cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) techniques have improved the diagnosis of pathologies. However, the primary tool for differentiating non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) from myocarditis is still a visual assessment of conventional signal-intensity-based images. This study aimed at analyzing the ability of parametric compared to conventional techniques to visually differentiate ischemic from non-ischemic myocardial injury patterns. METHODS: Twenty NSTEMI patients, twenty infarct-like myocarditis patients, and twenty controls were examined using cine, T2-weighted CMR (T2w) and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging and T1/T2 mapping on a 1.5 T scanner. CMR images were presented in random order to two experienced fully blinded observers, who had to assign them to three categories by a visual analysis: NSTEMI, myocarditis, or healthy. RESULTS: The conventional approach (cine, T2w and LGE combined) had the best diagnostic accuracy with 92% (95%CI: 81-97) for NSTEMI and 86% (95%CI: 71-94) for myocarditis. The diagnostic accuracies using T1 maps were 88% (95%CI: 74-95) and 80% (95%CI: 62-91), 84% (95%CI: 67-93) and 74% (95%CI: 54-87) for LGE, and 83% (95%CI: 66-92) and 73% (95%CI: 53-87) for T2w. The accuracies for cine (72% (95%CI: 52-86) and 60% (95%CI: 38-78)) and T2 maps (62% (95%CI: 40-79) and 47% (95%CI: 28-68)) were significantly lower compared to the conventional approach (p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The conventional approach provided a reliable visual discrimination between NSTEMI, myocarditis, and controls. The diagnostic accuracy of a visual pattern analysis of T1 maps was not significantly inferior, whereas the diagnostic accuracy of T2 maps was not sufficient in this context. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The ability of parametric compared to conventional CMR techniques to visually differentiate ischemic from non-ischemic myocardial injury patterns can avoid potentially unnecessary invasive coronary angiography and help to shorten CMR protocols and to reduce the need of gadolinium contrast agents. KEY POINTS: • A visual differentiation of ischemic from non-ischemic patterns of myocardial injury is reliably achieved by a combination of conventional CMR techniques (cine, T2-weighted and LGE imaging). • There is no significant difference in accuracies between visual pattern analysis on native T1 maps without providing quantitative values and a conventional combined approach for differentiating non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, infarct-like myocarditis, and controls. • T2 maps do not provide a sufficient diagnostic accuracy for visual pattern analysis for differentiating non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, infarct-like myocarditis, and controls.
Jahnke et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and acute infarct-like myocarditis (n=60). Conventional CMR approach (cine, T2w, and LGE combined) vs. Parametric CMR techniques (T1 and T2 mapping) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for NSTEMI using the conventional approach (95% CI 81-97). A conventional CMR approach combining cine, T2-weighted, and LGE imaging achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 92% for NSTEMI, which was not significantly different from visual pattern analysis of T1 maps.