Comparison of diagnostic algorithms in clinically suspected viral myocarditis: Agreement between cardiovascular magnetic resonance, endomyocardial biopsy, and troponin T.

AIMS

Myocardial inflammation is increasingly detected noninvasively by tissue mapping with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Intraindividual agreement with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) or markers of myocardial injury, high-sensitive cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) in patients with clinically suspected viral myocarditis is incompletely understood.

METHODS

Prospective multicenter study of consecutive patients with clinically suspected myocarditis who underwent blood testing for hs-cTnT, CMR, and EMB as a part of diagnostic workup. EMB was considered positive based on immunohistological criteria in line with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) definitions. CMR diagnoses employed tissue mapping using sequence-specific cut-off for native T1 and T2 mapping; active inflammation was defined as T1 ≥2 standard deviation (SD) and T2 ≥2 SD above the mean of normal range. Hs-cTnT of greater than 13.9 ng/L was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients (age (mean ± SD) 54 ± 16, 65% males) were included, of which 79 (69%) had positive EMB criteria, 64 (56%) CMR criteria, and a total of 58 (51%) positive troponin. Agreement between EMB and CMR diagnostic criteria was poor (CMR vs ESC: area under the curve (AUC): 0.51 (0.39-0.62)). The agreement between a significant hs-cTnT rise and CMR-based diagnosis of myocarditis was good (AUC: 0.84 (0.68-0.92); p < 0.001), but poor for EMB (0.50 (0.40-0.61). Hs-cTnT was significantly associated with native T1 and T2, high-sensitive C-reactive protein, and N-terminal pro-hormone brain natriuretic peptide (r = 0.37, r = 0.35, r = 0.30, r = 0.25; p < 0.001), but not immunohistochemical criteria or viral presence.

CONCLUSION

In clinically suspected viral myocarditis, all diagnostic approaches reflect the pathophysiological elements of myocardial inflammation; however, the differing underlying drivers only partially overlap. The EMB and CMR diagnostic algorithms are neither interchangeable in terms of interpretation of myocardial inflammation nor in their relationship with myocardial injury.