Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging identified left ventricular hypertrophy in 3 (6%) patients with previously normal echocardiography, revealing thickness in the anterolateral LV free wall measuring 17 to 20 mm, thus assisting in a new diagnosis of HCM.
Does CMR afford greater accuracy than 2D echocardiography in establishing the diagnosis and assessing the magnitude of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with suspected or confirmed HCM?
Patients suspected of having hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or with a confirmed diagnosis (mean age 34, 71% male)
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMR)
Two-dimensional echocardiography
Accuracy in establishing the diagnosis of HCM and assessing the magnitude of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophysurrogate
CMR can identify regions of LV hypertrophy, particularly in the anterolateral free wall, that are missed by standard 2D echocardiography, allowing for the diagnosis of HCM in an important minority of patients.
Background— Two-dimensional echocardiography is currently the standard test for the clinical diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The present study was undertaken to determine whether cardiac MRI (CMR) affords greater accuracy than echocardiography in establishing the diagnosis and assessing the magnitude of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy in HCM. Methods and Results— Forty-eight patients (age 34±16 years) suspected of having HCM (or with a confirmed diagnosis) were imaged by both echocardiography and CMR to assess LV wall thickness in 8 anatomic segments (total n=384 segments) and compared in a blinded fashion. Maximum LV thickness was similar by echocardiography (21.7±9.1 mm) and CMR (22.5±9.6 mm; P =0.21). However, in 3 (6%) of the 48 patients, echocardiography did not demonstrate LV hypertrophy, and CMR identified otherwise undetected areas of wall thickening in the anterolateral LV free wall (17 to 20 mm), which resulted in a new diagnosis of HCM. In the overall study group, compared with CMR, echocardiography also underestimated the magnitude of hypertrophy in the basal anterolateral free wall (by 20±6%; P =0.001), as well as the presence of extreme LV wall thickness (≥30 mm) in 10% of patients ( P <0.05). Conclusions— CMR is capable of identifying regions of LV hypertrophy not readily recognized by echocardiography and was solely responsible for diagnosis of the HCM phenotype in an important minority of patients. CMR enhances the assessment of LV hypertrophy, particularly in the anterolateral LV free wall, and represents a powerful supplemental imaging test with distinct diagnostic advantages for selected HCM patients.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Carsten Rickers
Norbert Wilke
Michael Jerosch‐Herold
Circulation
University of Minnesota
Oregon Health & Science University
Universität Hamburg
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Rickers et al. (Mon,) conducted a other in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (n=48). Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Comparison of maximum left ventricular wall thickness between CMR and echocardiography (p=0.21). Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging identified left ventricular hypertrophy in 3 (6%) patients with previously normal echocardiography, revealing thickness in the anterolateral LV free wall measuring 17 to 20 mm, thus assisting in a new diagnosis of HCM.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6978067976a395df3f7c7e35 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.104.507723