90
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) and CMR Working Group of the European Society of Cardiology consensus statement

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rapid innovations in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) now permit the routine acquisition of quantitative measures of myocardial and blood T1 which are key tissue characteristics. These capabilities introduce a new frontier in cardiology, enabling the practitioner/investigator to quantify biologically important myocardial properties that otherwise can be difficult to ascertain clinically. CMR may be able to track biologically important changes in the myocardium by: a) native T1 that reflects myocardial disease involving the myocyte and interstitium without use of gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA), or b) the extracellular volume fraction (ECV)–a direct GBCA-based measurement of the size of the extracellular space, reflecting interstitial disease. The latter technique attempts to dichotomize the myocardium into its cellular and interstitial components with estimates expressed as volume fractions. This document provides recommendations for clinical and research T1 and ECV measurement, based on published evidence when available and expert consensus when not. We address site preparation, scan type, scan planning and acquisition, quality control, visualisation and analysis, technical development. We also address controversies in the field. While ECV and native T1 mapping appear destined to affect clinical decision making, they lack multi-centre application and face significant challenges, which demand a community-wide approach among stakeholders. At present, ECV and native T1 mapping appear sufficiently robust for many diseases; yet more research is required before a large-scale application for clinical decision-making can be recommended.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part I.

          Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mechanisms of fibrosis: therapeutic translation for fibrotic disease.

            Fibrosis is a pathological feature of most chronic inflammatory diseases. Fibrosis, or scarring, is defined by the accumulation of excess extracellular matrix components. If highly progressive, the fibrotic process eventually leads to organ malfunction and death. Fibrosis affects nearly every tissue in the body. Here we discuss how key components of the innate and adaptive immune response contribute to the pathogenesis of fibrosis. We also describe how cell-intrinsic changes in important structural cells can perpetuate the fibrotic response by regulating the differentiation, recruitment, proliferation and activation of extracellular matrix-producing myofibroblasts. Finally, we highlight some of the key mechanisms and pathways of fibrosis that are being targeted as potential therapies for a variety of important human diseases.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association of fibrosis with mortality and sudden cardiac death in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

              Risk stratification of patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is primarily based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Superior prognostic factors may improve patient selection for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and other management decisions. To determine whether myocardial fibrosis (detected by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance [LGE-CMR] imaging) is an independent and incremental predictor of mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in dilated cardiomyopathy. Prospective, longitudinal study of 472 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy referred to a UK center for CMR imaging between November 2000 and December 2008 after presence and extent of midwall replacement fibrosis were determined. Patients were followed up through December 2011. Primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included cardiovascular mortality or cardiac transplantation; an arrhythmic composite of SCD or aborted SCD (appropriate ICD shock, nonfatal ventricular fibrillation, or sustained ventricular tachycardia); and a composite of HF death, HF hospitalization, or cardiac transplantation. Among the 142 patients with midwall fibrosis, there were 38 deaths (26.8%) vs 35 deaths (10.6%) among the 330 patients without fibrosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96 [95% CI, 1.87-4.69]; absolute risk difference, 16.2% [95% CI, 8.2%-24.2%]; P < .001) during a median follow-up of 5.3 years (2557 patient-years of follow-up). The arrhythmic composite was reached by 42 patients with fibrosis (29.6%) and 23 patients without fibrosis (7.0%) (HR, 5.24 [95% CI, 3.15-8.72]; absolute risk difference, 22.6% [95% CI, 14.6%-30.6%]; P < .001). After adjustment for LVEF and other conventional prognostic factors, both the presence of fibrosis (HR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.50-3.92]; P < .001) and the extent (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.06-1.16]; P < .001) were independently and incrementally associated with all-cause mortality. Fibrosis was also independently associated with cardiovascular mortality or cardiac transplantation (by fibrosis presence: HR, 3.22 [95% CI, 1.95-5.31], P < .001; and by fibrosis extent: HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.10-1.20], P < .001), SCD or aborted SCD (by fibrosis presence: HR, 4.61 [95% CI, 2.75-7.74], P < .001; and by fibrosis extent: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.16], P < .001), and the HF composite (by fibrosis presence: HR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.00-2.61], P = .049; and by fibrosis extent: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.13], P < .001). Addition of fibrosis to LVEF significantly improved risk reclassification for all-cause mortality and the SCD composite (net reclassification improvement: 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.41]; P = .001 and 0.29 [95% CI, 0.11-0.48]; P = .002, respectively). Assessment of midwall fibrosis with LGE-CMR imaging provided independent prognostic information beyond LVEF in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. The role of LGE-CMR in the risk stratification of dilated cardiomyopathy requires further investigation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
                J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
                Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
                BioMed Central
                1097-6647
                1532-429X
                2013
                14 October 2013
                : 15
                : 1
                : 92
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Heart Hospital, London, UK
                [2 ]Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [4 ]National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
                [5 ]Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [6 ]Department of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                [7 ]NIHR Cardiovascular BRU, Royal Brompton Hospital & Imperial College, London, UK
                [8 ]Departments of Cardiology and Radiology, Montreal Heart Institute, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
                [9 ]Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Working Group Cardiac MRI, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [10 ]Charite Campus Buch Experimental and Clinical Research Center, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany
                [11 ]UPMC Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                Article
                1532-429X-15-92
                10.1186/1532-429X-15-92
                3854458
                24124732
                Copyright © 2013 Moon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Categories
                Position Statement

                Cardiovascular Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content 105

                Cited by 256

                Most referenced authors 1,290