Discrepant Measurements of Maximal Left Ventricular Wall Thickness Between Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Abstract

Background-We sought to compare maximal left ventricular (LV) wall thickness (WT) measurements as obtained by routine clinical practice between echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and document causes of discrepancy. Methods and Results-One-hundred and ninety-five patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (median age, 52.8±15.1 years) who underwent echocardiography and CMR imaging within 6 months (median, 41 days; interquartile range, 16-97 days) were included. LVWT was assessed in parasternal long and short axis by 2-dimensional echocardiography and in short axis by CMR. By Bland-Altman plot, mean maximal LVWT difference between echocardiography and CMR was 0.5 mm (95% confidence interval, −6.9, 7.8) with equal distribution of discrepancy along the full range of LVWT. Ninety-seven patients (49.7%) were identified to have intermodal measurement discrepancies ≥10%. In 7 patients (7.2%), reported measurement by CMR was inaccurate because of interpretation error. In 90 patients (92.8%), echocardiography underestimated (n=32; 33.0%) or overestimated (n=58; 59.8%) maximal LVWT. Underestimation was because of focal LV hypertrophy (n=10; 10.3%) or poor acoustic windows (n=22; 22.7%) while overestimation resulted from inclusion of right ventricular myocardium (n=37; 38.1%), LV trabeculations (n=5; 5.2%), papillary muscle (n=3; 3.1%), and apical-septal bundle (n=1; 1.0%), as well as imaging plane obliquity (n=7; 12.5%). In 31 (15.9%) patients, measurement discrepancy occurred at diagnostic or prognostic cut-offs. Conclusions-Although maximal LVWT by echocardiography in general measured similar to CMR, discordance because of limitations in echocardiography technique was present in a significant subset of patients. As measurement of LVWT impacts diagnosis and sudden death management, CMR should be considered as part of routine evaluation of all patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. (Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:e006309.

SCMR Position Paper (2020) on clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance

“…All these markers can be quantitatively assessed by CMR. Myocardial wall thickness can be measured with more confidence than with TTE [ 242 ]. Of note, global LV mass may be normal, even in cases with marked regional hypertrophy [ 243 ].…”

Fabry Cardiomyopathy: Current Practice and Future Directions

“…The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to the echo assessment of patients with increased LV wall thickness may one day facilitate the diagnosis of FD given the known challenges of accurate LV wall thickness measurement [ 32 ]. Artificial intelligence-based myocardial texture analysis was suggested as a means of differentiating hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from hypertensive heart disease and uremic cardiomyopathy [ 33 ].…”

Role of CMR Mapping Techniques in Cardiac Hypertrophic Phenotype

“…As HCM is defined by a wall thickness ≥15 mm in at least one left ventricular myocardial segment, imaging methods are central to the diagnosis. Compared to echocardiography, CMR can measure LV wall thickness more precisely, especially in segments less reliably visualized by echocardiography such as the apical segments [ 39 , 40 ]. After gadolinium-based contrast injection, LGE is often found in hypertrophic segments, in a non-ischemic pattern (usually patchy/mid-wall enhancement) [ 41 ].…”