Noninvasive Multimodality Imaging in ARVD/C

Riele, Anneline S.J.M. te; Tandri, Harikrishna; Sanborn, Danita M. Yoerger; Bluemke, David A.

doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.02.007

Cited by 62 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With these important advantages, CMR has emerged as a useful adjunctive imaging modality for the evaluation of various cardiomyopathies [16,17]. For example, CMR provides more sensitive diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and enables the precise characterization of disease phenotypic variations (Fig.…”

Section: Morphology and Function Assessment: Cine-cmrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the role of TTE in the evaluation of RV morphology and function is limited due to its crescentic shape and limitation of acoustic window [17], CMR is the currently accepted reference standard for assessing RV size and function [29][30][31]. Due to superior depiction of the RV and the ability of non-invasive myocardial tissue characterization, CMR is currently one of the main imaging modalities for assessing patients with suspected or known arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), characterized by fibro-fatty replacement of the RV myocardium.…”

Section: Morphology and Function Assessment: Cine-cmrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Choi

Yoon

2017

Cardiovasc Imaging Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is not uncommon event worldwide. In a report from the Unites States, age-adjusted nationwide incidence of SCD was estimated at 60 per 100000 residents, and the public health burden of SCD is greater than individual cancer [1]. Moreover, the survival to discharge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is only 6.4% in patients who required emergency medical services [2]. To prevent this devastating consequence and improve survival, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is considered as the treatment of choice for patients who survive SCD or have a high risk of SCD. However, the decision whether to implant ICD is not straightforward. In a series of major trials, only 20−35% of patients experienced appropriate shock delivery in 1 to 3 years after ICD implantation [3]. Simultaneously, the cumulative incidence of inappropriate shock during 5 years of follow-up was 18%, which is associated with the increased risk of all-cause mortality [4]. In addition, in the pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials, 9.1% of patients experienced complications associated with ICD over 16 months [5]. Given the expense and risks of ICDs, accurately differentiating patients at higher risk of SCD is important.Based on current guidelines, ICD for primary prevention is recommended in symptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% who did not respond to medical treatment (Table 1) [6][7][8]. Therefore, to date, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has played a major role for identifying patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and higher risk of SCD. However, the issue on the selection of patients for ICD implantation based on LVEF using TTE has been raised constantly [8,9]. First, although two-dimensional (2D) TTE remains the most commonly used technique for the measurement of LVEF, it is based on geometric assumptions and is often limited by the sonic window. Second, use of LVEF alone showed a lack of sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of SCD. Although patients with severe LV dysfunction were shown to be at higher risk, they constitute less than one third of SCD cases [10,11]. In many instances, SCDs occur as the first manifestation of heart disease or in patients with a heart disease but with no or mild LV systolic dysfunction [12]. In a community-based prospective study entitled Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study, only 20% of patients who experienced SCD were eligible for ICD implantation based on the current guidelines that included LVEF and symptoms [13].Recently, great technical advances and diminished scan times have been achieved in the field of cardiac magnetic resocc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a significant problem worldwide and the risk strati...

show abstract

Section: Morphology and Function Assessment: Cine-cmrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphology and Function Assessment: Cine-cmrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Choi

Yoon

2017

Cardiovasc Imaging Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Localised RV dyskinesia or aneurysm is an important diagnostic criterion for arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy (Fig. 5) [10]. Hypokinesia of the RV free wall combined with the normal contraction of the RV apex (McConnell sign) in the presence of RV pressure overload is a typical finding in patients with acute pulmonary embolism [11].…”

Section: Qualitative Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of novel echocardiographic techniques to assess right ventricular geometry and function

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…M-mode echocardiography, often used for LVH assessment, has a temporal resolution up to 1 ms. However, echocardiography is operator and patient dependent, which could result in a relatively high inter-observer variability 20)21)22). Furthermore, geometric assumptions represent an important limitation in LVM estimation in M-mode and 2DE, but this can be overcome by the use of 3DE: when 3DE measurements of LVM are compared to CMR measurements as gold standard, they correlate better, and have smaller limits of agreements, than LVM measurements with 2DE 23)24).…”

Section: Pros and Cons Of Imaging Modalities For Assessing Lvh Severitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Characteristically, it is not dependent on acoustic windows, measurements are less operator dependent, and overall resolution is adequate 21)22). This technique is considered the gold standard for assessment of most cardiac parameters including LVM, also allowing for cardiac tissue characterization.…”

Section: Pros and Cons Of Imaging Modalities For Assessing Lvh Severitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodality Imaging for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Severity Grading: A Methodological Review

Alkema

Spitzer

Soliman

et al. 2016

J Cardiovasc Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), defined by an increase in left ventricular mass (LVM), is a common cardiac finding generally caused by an increase in pressure or volume load. Assessing severity of LVH is of great clinical value in terms of prognosis and treatment choices, as LVH severity grades correlate with the risk for presenting cardiovascular events. The three main cardiac parameters for the assessment of LVH are wall thickness, LVM, and LV geometry. Echocardiography, with large availability and low cost, is the technique of choice for their assessment. Consequently, reference values for LVH severity in clinical guidelines are based on this technique. However, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and computed tomography (CT) are increasingly used in clinical practice, providing excellent image quality. Nevertheless, there is no extensive data to support reference values based on these techniques, while comparative studies between the three techniques show different results in wall thickness and LVM measurements. In this paper, we provide an overview of the different methodologies used to assess LVH severity with echocardiography, CMR and CT. We argue that establishing reference values per imaging modality, and possibly indexed to body surface area and classified per gender, ethnicity and age-group, might be essential for the correct classification of LVH severity.

show abstract

Noninvasive Multimodality Imaging in ARVD/C

Cited by 62 publications

References 80 publications

Evaluation of Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Evaluation of Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Use of novel echocardiographic techniques to assess right ventricular geometry and function

Multimodality Imaging for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Severity Grading: A Methodological Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About