Differentiation of acute non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and acute infarct-like myocarditis by visual pattern analysis: a head-to-head comparison of different cardiac MR techniques.
Cardiac imaging techniques
Magnetic resonance imaging
Myocardial infarction
Myocarditis
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
19
04
2023
accepted:
28
05
2023
revised:
19
04
2023
medline:
11
8
2023
pubmed:
13
7
2023
entrez:
12
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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. 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. • 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37438640
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09905-5
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-09905-5
pmc: PMC10415415
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Gadolinium
AU0V1LM3JT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6258-6266Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;7(3):254-63
pubmed: 24560214
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):383-92
pubmed: 24910904
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Oct 14;15:92
pubmed: 24124732
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jun 7;45(11):1815-22
pubmed: 15936612
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Mar;4(3):269-78
pubmed: 21414575
Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 7;40(6):553-558
pubmed: 30380037
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jul;7(7):667-75
pubmed: 24954462
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 May 28;22(1):39
pubmed: 32460852
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Sep;1(5):652-62
pubmed: 19356496
Eur Heart J. 2021 Apr 7;42(14):1289-1367
pubmed: 32860058
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Oct;6(10):1048-1058
pubmed: 24011774
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Mar 31;6(4):
pubmed: 28364045
Circulation. 2008 Aug 19;118(8):837-44
pubmed: 18678772
Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):83-91
pubmed: 28678672
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Nov 9;22(1):76
pubmed: 33161900
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Feb 22;57(8):891-903
pubmed: 21329834
Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):401-9
pubmed: 18180335
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Sep;8(9):1019-1030
pubmed: 26298071
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Mar;35(3):517-527
pubmed: 30357547
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jul 01;18(7):744-751
pubmed: 28329275
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Oct 9;19(1):75
pubmed: 28992817
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jun 8;55(23):2614-62
pubmed: 20513610
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 May 23;16:36
pubmed: 24886708
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jan;8(1):37-46
pubmed: 25499131
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011 Feb 18;13:13
pubmed: 21332972
Circulation. 2018 Nov 13;138(20):e618-e651
pubmed: 30571511
Eur Heart J. 2005 Aug;26(15):1461-74
pubmed: 15831557
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Apr 28;53(17):1475-87
pubmed: 19389557
Am Heart J. 2011 Jul;162(1):16-30
pubmed: 21742086
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 18;72(24):3158-3176
pubmed: 30545455
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Jan;5(1):102-10
pubmed: 22038988
Clin Res Cardiol. 2017 Jan;106(1):10-17
pubmed: 27388331
Eur Heart J. 2013 Sep;34(33):2636-48, 2648a-2648d
pubmed: 23824828
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009 Dec 30;11:56
pubmed: 20042111