BackgroundSerial surveillance endomyocardial biopsies are performed in patients who have recently undergone heart transplantation in order to detect acute cardiac allograft rejection (ACAR) before symptoms occur, however the biopsy process is associated with a number of limitations. This study aimed to prospectively and longitudinally evaluate the performance of multiparametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for detecting and monitoring ACAR in the early phase post-transplant, and characterize graft recovery following transplantation.MethodsAll patients receiving a heart transplant at a single UK centre over a period of 25 months were approached within one month of transplantation. Multiparametric CMR was prospectively performed on the same day as biopsy on four separate occasions (6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks and 20 weeks post-transplant). CMR included assessment of global and regional ventricular function, myocardial tissue characterization (T1 mapping, T2 mapping, extracellular volume, LGE) and pixel-wise absolute myocardial blood flow quantification. CMR parameters were compared with biopsy findings. As is standard, grade 2R or higher ACAR was considered significant.Results88 CMR-matched biopsies were performed in 22 patients. Eight (9%) biopsies in 5 patients demonstrated significant ACAR. Significant ACAR was associated with a reduction in circumferential strain (−12.7 ± 2.5% vs. -13.7 ± 3.6%, p = 0.047) but there was considerable overlap between groups. Whilst trends were observed between ACAR and proposed CMR markers of oedema, particularly after adjusting for primary graft dysfunction, differences were not significant. Significant improvements were seen in markers of graft structure and contractility, oedema and microvascular function over the period studied, although few parameters normalised.ConclusionsThis study provides novel insight into the myocardial injury associated with transplantation, and its recovery, however multiparametric CMR was not able to accurately detect ACAR during the early phase post-transplantation.

BackgroundQuantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow (MBF) from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion images appears to offer advantages over qualitative assessment. Currently however, clinical translation is lacking, at least in part due to considerable disparity in quantification methodology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of common methodological differences in CMR voxel-wise measurement of MBF, using position emission tomography (PET) as external validation.MethodsEighteen subjects, including 9 with significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and 9 healthy volunteers prospectively underwent perfusion CMR. Comparison was made between MBF quantified using: 1. Calculated contrast agent concentration curves (to correct for signal saturation) versus raw signal intensity curves; 2. Mid-ventricular versus basal-ventricular short-axis arterial input function (AIF) extraction; 3. Three different deconvolution approaches; Fermi function parameterization, truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD) and first-order Tikhonov regularization with b-splines. CAD patients also prospectively underwent rubidium-82 PET (median interval 7 days).ResultsMBF was significantly higher when calculated using signal intensity compared to contrast agent concentration curves, and when the AIF was extracted from mid- compared to basal-ventricular images. MBF did not differ significantly between Fermi and Tikhonov, or between Fermi and TVSD deconvolution methods although there was a small difference between TSVD and Tikhonov (0.06 mL/min/g). Agreement between all deconvolution methods was high. MBF derived using each CMR deconvolution method showed a significant linear relationship (p < 0.001) with PET-derived MBF however each method underestimated MBF compared to PET (by 0.19 to 0.35 mL/min/g).ConclusionsVariations in more complex methodological factors such as deconvolution method have no greater effect on estimated MBF than simple factors such as AIF location and observer variability. Standardization of the quantification process will aid comparison between studies and may help CMR MBF quantification enter clinical use.

Implantable pulse generators and defibrillators have traditionally been considered contraindications to MRI. However, recent data have challenged this paradigm and demonstrated that patients with newer generation devices can safely undergo MRI, including cardiac MRI, provided basic precautions are taken. Indeed, the introduction of MRI conditional systems has led to a conceptual shift in clinical decision making-'can this patient undergo MRI safely?' is being superseded by 'should this patient be implanted with an MRI conditional device?'. This review outlines the risks associated with MRI in patients with implanted cardiac devices, and discusses practical measures to minimise risks and facilitate safe and diagnostic scanning.

A greater propensity for reconnection was noted around the right sided PV segments in both the CF and non-CF groups. The explanation for this finding was related to greater catheter instability around the right sided veins. Further research is needed to explore the utility of a "real-time" composite indicator that includes RF energy, CF and catheter stability in predicting transmural lesion formation during catheter ablation.