T1 and T2 mapping to detect chronic inflammation in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
CMR
DCM phenotype
HFrEF
Inflammation
Mapping
Journal
ESC heart failure
ISSN: 2055-5822
Titre abrégé: ESC Heart Fail
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101669191
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
04
02
2020
revised:
20
04
2020
accepted:
23
05
2020
pubmed:
14
8
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
14
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this retrospective single-centre study was to evaluate the non-invasive detection of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB)-established chronic myocardial inflammation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using T1 and T2 mapping. The study population consisted of 52 retrospectively identified HFrEF patients who underwent EMB and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla. EMB was defined according to the position statement of the European Society of Cardiology and served as reference to identify inflammation in all patients. A control group of healthy volunteers with prior cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies (n = 58) was also identified. Global and segmental T1 and T2 values as well as septal measurements and tissue heterogeneity parameters were calculated. Out of the 52 patients with HFrEF, 33 patients had myocardial inflammation detected by EMB, while 19 patients were EMB negative for inflammation. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31% in both groups (P = 0.97). Global T1 and T2 values in HFrEF patients were significantly higher compared with healthy controls (T1 1275 ± 69 ms vs. 1,175 ± 44 ms, P < 0.001; T2 40.0 ± 3.4 ms vs. 37.9 ± 1.6 ms, P < 0.001). The distribution of T1 and T2 values between patients with and without EMB-proven chronic myocardial inflammation was not statistically different when regarding global (T1 1292 ± 71 ms vs. 1266 ± 67 ms, P = 0.26; T2 40.0 ± 2.6 ms vs. 40.0 ± 3.9 ms, P = 1.0), septal (T1 1299 ± 63 ms vs. 1289 ± 76 ms, P = 0.76; T2 40.1 ± 3.5 ms vs 40.0 ± 6.4 ms, P = 0.49) or maximum segmental values (T1 1414 ± 111 ms vs. 1363 ± 88 ms, P = 0.15; T2 47.3 ± 5.2 ms vs. 48.8 ± 11.8 ms, P = 0.53). Mean absolute deviation of segmental T1 and T2 values and log-transformed pixel-wise standard deviation as parameters of tissue heterogeneity did not reveal statistical significant differences between inflammation-positive and inflammation-negative HFrEF patients (all P > 0.4). Conventionally performed quantitative T1 and T2 mapping values significantly correlated with prevalence of HFrEF but did not discriminate HFrEF patients with or without chronic myocardial inflammation in our cohort. This suggests that EMB is the preferred method to detect chronic myocardial inflammation in HFrEF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32790159
doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12830
pmc: PMC7524213
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2544-2552Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie
ID : BMBF 01EO1503
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.
Références
ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Oct;7(5):2544-2552
pubmed: 32790159
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Apr 19;67(15):1800-1811
pubmed: 27081020
Eur Heart J. 2007 Dec;28(24):3076-93
pubmed: 17959624
Lancet. 2010 Feb 27;375(9716):752-62
pubmed: 20189027
Theranostics. 2019 Feb 12;9(5):1303-1322
pubmed: 30867832
J Hepatol. 2019 Jun;70(6):1133-1144
pubmed: 30876945
Korean J Radiol. 2017 Jan-Feb;18(1):113-131
pubmed: 28096723
Eur Heart J. 2009 Aug;30(16):1995-2002
pubmed: 19556262
Circulation. 2002 Jan 29;105(4):539-42
pubmed: 11815441
Radiology. 2019 Sep;292(3):608-617
pubmed: 31361205
Circulation. 2018 Mar 6;137(10):993-995
pubmed: 29506992
Circulation. 2010 Aug 31;122(9):900-9
pubmed: 20713901
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Oct 14;15:92
pubmed: 24124732
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct;86(4):761-5
pubmed: 25586731
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013 Sep;10(9):531-47
pubmed: 23900355
Circulation. 2015 Oct 27;132(17):1667-78
pubmed: 26503749
Circulation. 1989 Sep;80(3):564-72
pubmed: 2766509
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 May;5(5):513-24
pubmed: 22595159
Cardiovasc Pathol. 2012 Jul-Aug;21(4):245-74
pubmed: 22137237
Circulation. 2008 Oct 21;118(17):1722-8
pubmed: 18838566
Heart Fail Rev. 2017 Jul;22(4):431-440
pubmed: 28497231
ESC Heart Fail. 2018 Aug;5(4):630-641
pubmed: 29745463
Circ Res. 2017 Sep 15;121(7):722-730
pubmed: 28912179
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 May 1;19(5):574-582
pubmed: 29136120
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Oct;6(10):1048-1058
pubmed: 24011774
Circulation. 1999 Mar 2;99(8):1091-100
pubmed: 10051305
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jun;30 Suppl 1:65-72
pubmed: 24715436
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Jan 04;16:2
pubmed: 24387626
Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 Oct;16(10):1066-72
pubmed: 25163698
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Dec 23;17:115
pubmed: 26700020
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Feb;29(2):429-34
pubmed: 9015000
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Jan;9(1):67-81
pubmed: 26762877
Cancer Med. 2017 Jan;6(1):89-99
pubmed: 27891815
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2019 Sep 07;25:100422
pubmed: 31517037
Med Sci Monit. 2002 May;8(5):MT59-71
pubmed: 12011783
Eur Heart J. 2013 Sep;34(33):2636-48, 2648a-2648d
pubmed: 23824828
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jun 14;37(23):1850-8
pubmed: 26792875