Webb Jessica, Villa Adriana, Bekri Imane, Shome Joy, Teall Thomas, Claridge Simon, Jackson Tom, Porter Bradley, Ismail Tevfik F, Di Giovine Gabriella, Rinaldi Christopher A, Carr-White Gerald, Al-Fakih Khaled, Razavi Reza, Chiribiri Amedeo
Department of Cardiology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Am J Cardiol. 2017 May 1;119(9):1450-1455. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.01.021. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
Echocardiography-derived measurements of maximum left ventricular (LV) wall thickness are important for both the diagnosis and risk stratification of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is increasingly being used in the assessment of HC; however, little is known about the relation between wall thickness measurements made by the 2 modalities. We sought to compare measurements made with echocardiography and CMR and to assess the impact of any differences on risk stratification using the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Maximum LV wall thickness measurements were recorded on 50 consecutive patients with HC. Sixty-nine percent of LV wall thickness measurements were recorded with echocardiography, compared with 69% from CMR (p <0.001). There was poor agreement on the location of maximum LV wall thickness; weighted-Cohen's κ 0.14 (p = 0.036) and maximum LV wall thicknesses were systematically higher with echocardiography than with CMR (mean 19.1 ± 0.4 mm vs 16.5 ± 0.3 mm, p <0.01, respectively); Bland-Altman bias 2.6 mm (95% confidence interval -9.8 to 4.6). Interobserver variability was lower for CMR (R 0.67 echocardiography, R 0.93 CMR). The mean difference in 5-year sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk between echocardiography and CMR was 0.49 ± 0.45% (p = 0.37). When classifying patients (low, intermediate, or high risk), 6 patients were reclassified when CMR was used instead of echocardiography to assess maximum LV wall thickness. These findings suggest that CMR measurements of maximum LV wall thickness can be cautiously used in the current European Society of Cardiology risk score calculations, although further long-term studies are needed to confirm this.
超声心动图测得的左心室(LV)最大壁厚对于肥厚型心肌病(HC)的诊断和风险分层均具有重要意义。心脏磁共振成像(CMR)在HC评估中的应用日益广泛;然而,对于这两种检查方式测得的壁厚之间的关系却知之甚少。我们旨在比较超声心动图和CMR的测量结果,并依据当前欧洲心脏病学会指南评估二者差异对风险分层的影响。连续纳入50例HC患者,记录其LV最大壁厚测量值。LV壁厚测量值的69%通过超声心动图获得,CMR获得的比例为69%(p<0.001)。LV最大壁厚的位置一致性较差;加权Cohen's κ为0.14(p = 0.036),且超声心动图测得的LV最大壁厚系统性地高于CMR(分别为19.1±0.4mm和16.5±0.3mm,p<0.01);Bland-Altman偏差为2.6mm(95%置信区间为-9.8至4.6)。CMR的观察者间变异性较低(超声心动图R为0.67,CMR为0.93)。超声心动图和CMR评估的5年心源性猝死(SCD)风险平均差异为0.49±0.45%(p = 0.37)。在对患者进行低、中、高风险分类时,使用CMR而非超声心动图评估LV最大壁厚时,有6例患者的风险分类发生了改变。这些结果表明,尽管需要进一步的长期研究来证实,但在当前欧洲心脏病学会风险评分计算中可谨慎使用CMR测量的LV最大壁厚。