Search

Objectives\udThe aim of this study was to define the variability of maximal wall thickness (MWT) measurements across modalities and predict its impact on care in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).\ud\udBackground\udLeft ventricular MWT measured by echocardiography or cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) contributes to the diagnosis of HCM, stratifies risk, and guides key decisions, including whether to place an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).\ud\udMethods\udA 20-center global network provided paired echocardiographic and CMR data sets from patients with HCM, from which 17 paired data sets of the highest quality were selected. These were presented as 7 randomly ordered pairs (at 6 cardiac conferences) to experienced readers who report HCM imaging in their daily practice, and their MWT caliper measurements were captured. The impact of measurement variability on ICD insertion decisions was estimated in 769 separately recruited multicenter patients with HCM using the European Society of Cardiology algorithm for 5-year risk for sudden cardiac death.\ud\udResults\udMWT analysis was completed by 70 readers (from 6 continents; 91% with >5 years’ experience). Seventy-nine percent and 68% scored echocardiographic and CMR image quality as excellent. For both modalities (echocardiographic and then CMR results), intramodality inter-reader MWT percentage variability was large (range –59% to 117% [SD ±20%] and –61% to 52% [SD ±11%], respectively). Agreement between modalities was low (SE of measurement 4.8 mm; 95% CI 4.3 mm-5.2 mm; r = 0.56 [modest correlation]). In the multicenter HCM cohort, this estimated echocardiographic MWT percentage variability (±20%) applied to the European Society of Cardiology algorithm reclassified risk in 19.5% of patients, which would have led to inappropriate ICD decision making in 1 in 7 patients with HCM (8.7% would have had ICD placement recommended despite potential low risk, and 6.8% would not have had ICD placement recommended despite intermediate or high risk).\ud\udConclusions\udUsing the best available images and experienced readers, MWT as a biomarker in HCM has a high degree of inter-reader variability and should be applied with caution as part of decision making for ICD insertion. Better standardization efforts in HCM recommendations by current governing societies are needed to improve clinical decision making in patients with HCM.

Objectives This study was designed to compare head-to-head fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) (FFRCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion imaging for prediction of standard-of-care–guided coronary revascularization in patients with stable chest pain and obstructive coronary artery disease by coronary CTA. Background FFRCT is a novel modality for noninvasive functional testing. The clinical utility of FFRCT compared to CMR stress perfusion imaging in symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease is unknown. Methods Prospective study of patients (n=110) with stable angina pectoris and 1 or more coronary stenosis ≥50% by coronary CTA. All patients underwent invasive coronary angiography. Revascularization was FFR-guided in stenoses ranging from 30% to 90%. FFRCT ≤0.80 in 1 or more coronary artery or a reversible perfusion defect (≥2 segments) by CMR categorized patients with ischemia. FFRCT and CMR were analyzed by core laboratories blinded for patient management. Results A total of 38 patients (35%) underwent revascularization. Per-patient diagnostic performance for identifying standard-of-care–guided revascularization, (95% confidence interval) yielded a sensitivity of 97% (86 to 100) for FFRCT versus 47% (31 to 64) for CMR, p 0.05, respectively. Conclusions In patients with stable chest pain referred to invasive coronary angiography based on coronary CTA, FFRCT and CMR yielded similar overall diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity for prediction of revascularization was highest for FFRCT, whereas specificity was highest for CMR.

Objectives: The study sought to determine the associations between local (pericardial) fat and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and cardiac remodeling independent of markers of ...

Left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) is characterized by the presence of an extensive noncompacted myocardial layer lining the cavity of the left ventricle (LV) and potentially leads to cardiac failure, thromboembolism, and malignant arrhythmias [(1)][1]. LVNC is a heterogeneous clinical condition

Left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) is an intriguing, but poorly understood, condition that can lead to heart failure, malignant arrhythmias, and thromboembolic events. It can be associated with neuromuscular disorders and can coexist with other cardiac malformations [(1)][1]. Diagnostic imaging

Left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) is characterized by a 2-layered appearance of the myocardium, with a thick inner trabeculated layer and a thin outer compacted myocardial layer. Many uncertainties remain with regard to its prevalence, pathogenesis, natural history, and the mechanisms leading to