Institute of Cardiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2011 Dec;22(12):1359-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02127.x. Epub 2011 Jul 7.
Assessment of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) at cardiac magnetic resonance is often used to detect scar in patients with arrhythmias of right ventricular (RV) origin. Recently, electroanatomic mapping (EAM) has been shown to reliably detect scars corresponding to different cardiomyopathic substrates. We compared LGE with EAM for the detection of scar in patients with arrhythmias of RV origin.
Thirty-one patients with RV arrhythmias and biopsy-proven structural heart disease (18 ARVC and 13 myocarditis), and 5 with idiopathic RV outflow tract arrhythmias underwent LGE analysis and EAM with scar validation through EAM-guided endomyocardial biopsy. EAM scars were present in 23 (64%) patients (all with structural heart disease), whereas LGE was present only in 12 (33%). In 2 cases, EAM provided a false-positive diagnosis of a small scar in the basal perivalvular area. LGE correctly diagnosed EAM scar in 48% of patients, resulting in high positive (92%) but low negative (50%) predictive values. The distribution of LGE was significantly associated with the distribution of EAM scars (P < 0.001 in the free wall, P = 0.003 in the outflow tract, and P = 0.023 in the posterior/inferior wall). Presence of LGE reflected a higher extension of EAM scars (34.4 ± 16.5% vs 7.9 ± 10.1% of the RV area, P < 0.001). At receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, an extension of scar ≥20% of the RV area was the best cut-off value to detect LGE (sensitivity 83%, specificity 92%). Of note, LGE missed 10 of 11 (91%) patients with EAM scars <20% of RV area.
LGE is significantly less sensitive than EAM in identifying RV cardiomyopathic substrates. Absence of LGE does not rule out the presence of small scars, and EAM with biopsy should be considered to increase the diagnostic yield.
心脏磁共振的晚期钆增强(LGE)评估常用于检测右心室(RV)起源心律失常患者的瘢痕。最近,电解剖图(EAM)已被证明可可靠地检测到与不同心肌病底物相对应的瘢痕。我们比较了 LGE 和 EAM 在检测 RV 起源心律失常患者瘢痕中的作用。
31 例 RV 心律失常且经活检证实存在结构性心脏病的患者(18 例 ARVC 和 13 例心肌炎),以及 5 例特发性 RV 流出道心律失常患者接受了 LGE 分析和 EAM,EAM 引导的心内膜心肌活检用于验证瘢痕。EAM 瘢痕见于 23 例(64%)患者(均存在结构性心脏病),而 LGE 仅见于 12 例(33%)。在 2 例中,EAM 做出了基底瓣周区小瘢痕的假阳性诊断。LGE 正确诊断了 EAM 瘢痕患者的 48%,导致阳性预测值高(92%)而阴性预测值低(50%)。LGE 的分布与 EAM 瘢痕的分布显著相关(游离壁 P<0.001,流出道 P=0.003,后/下壁 P=0.023)。LGE 的存在反映了 EAM 瘢痕的更大延伸(RV 面积的 34.4±16.5%与 7.9±10.1%,P<0.001)。在接受者操作特征(ROC)分析中,瘢痕延伸≥RV 面积的 20%是检测 LGE 的最佳截断值(敏感性 83%,特异性 92%)。值得注意的是,LGE 漏诊了 EAM 瘢痕<RV 面积 20%的 11 例患者中的 10 例(91%)。
LGE 在识别 RV 心肌病底物方面的敏感性明显低于 EAM。LGE 阴性并不能排除小瘢痕的存在,应考虑 EAM 引导活检以提高诊断率。