Brendel Jan M, Klingel Karin, Kübler Jens, Müller Karin A L, Hagen Florian, Gawaz Meinrad, Nikolaou Konstantin, Greulich Simon, Krumm Patrick
Department of Radiology, Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Cardiopathology, Institute for Pathology and Neuropathology, University of Tübingen, Liebermeisterstraße 8, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 30;11(17):5113. doi: 10.3390/jcm11175113.
(1) Background: Compared to acute myocarditis in the initial phase, detection of subacute myocarditis with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters can be challenging due to a lower degree of myocardial inflammation compared to the acute phase. (2) Objectives: To systematically evaluate non-invasive CMR imaging parameters in acute and subacute myocarditis. (3) Methods: 48 patients (age 37 (IQR 28−55) years; 52% female) with clinically suspected myocarditis were consecutively included. Patients with onset of symptoms ≤2 weeks prior to 1.5T CMR were assigned to the acute group (n = 25, 52%), patients with symptom duration >2 to 6 weeks were assigned to the subacute group (n = 23, 48%). CMR protocol comprised morphology, function, 3D-strain, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging and mapping (T1, ECV, T2). (4) Results: Highest diagnostic performance in the detection of subacute myocarditis was achieved by ECV evaluation either as single parameter or in combination with T1 mapping (applying a segmental or global increase of native T1 > 1015 ms and ECV > 28%), sensitivity 96% and accuracy 91%. Compared to subacute myocarditis, acute myocarditis demonstrated higher prevalence and extent of LGE (AUC 0.76) and increased T2 (AUC 0.66). (5) Conclusions: A comprehensive CMR approach allows reliable diagnosis of clinically suspected subacute myocarditis. Thereby, ECV alone or in combination with native T1 mapping indicated the best performance for diagnosing subacute myocarditis. Acute vs. subacute myocarditis is difficult to discriminate by CMR alone, due to chronological connection and overlap of pathologic findings.
(1) 背景:与急性期的急性心肌炎相比,由于亚急性期心肌炎症程度低于急性期,利用心脏磁共振成像(CMR)参数检测亚急性心肌炎具有挑战性。(2) 目的:系统评估急性和亚急性心肌炎的非侵入性CMR成像参数。(3) 方法:连续纳入48例临床疑似心肌炎患者(年龄37(四分位间距28 - 55)岁;52%为女性)。症状出现至1.5T CMR检查前≤2周的患者被分配至急性组(n = 25,52%),症状持续时间>2至6周的患者被分配至亚急性组(n = 23,48%)。CMR检查方案包括形态学、功能、三维应变、延迟钆增强(LGE)成像及成像图谱(T1、细胞外容积分数(ECV)、T2)。(4) 结果:ECV单独作为参数或与T1成像图谱联合使用时,在检测亚急性心肌炎方面诊断性能最高(应用节段性或整体固有T1>1015 ms且ECV>28%),敏感性96%,准确性91%。与亚急性心肌炎相比,急性心肌炎LGE的患病率和范围更高(曲线下面积0.76),T2升高(曲线下面积0.66)。(5) 结论:全面的CMR检查方法能够可靠诊断临床疑似的亚急性心肌炎。因此,单独的ECV或与固有T1成像图谱联合使用在诊断亚急性心肌炎方面表现最佳。由于病理表现存在时间上的关联和重叠,仅靠CMR难以鉴别急性和亚急性心肌炎。