Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

MDPI, Diagnostics, 5(10), p. 335, 2020

DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10050335

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The Double-Edged Sword of T1-Mapping in Systemic Sclerosis—A Comparison with Infectious Myocarditis Using Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Aims: T1-mapping is considered a surrogate marker of acute myocardial inflammation. However, in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) this might be confounded by coexisting myocardial fibrosis. We hypothesized that T1-based indices should not by themselves be considered as indicators of myocardial inflammation in dcSSc patients. Methods/Results: A cohort of 59 dcSSc and 34 infectious myocarditis patients was prospectively evaluated using a 1.5-Tesla system for an indication of suspected myocardial inflammation and was compared with 31 healthy controls. Collectively, 33 (97%) and 57 (98%) of myocarditis and dcSSc patients respectively had ≥1 pathologic T2-based index. However, 33 (97%) and 45 (76%) of myocarditis and dcSSc patients respectively had ≥1 pathologic T2-based index. T2-signal ratio was significantly higher in myocarditis patients compared with dcSSc patients (2.5 (0.6) vs. 2.1 (0.4), p < 0.001). Early gadolinium enhancement, late gadolinium enhancement and T2-mapping did not differ significantly between groups. However, both native T1-mapping and extracellular volume fraction were significantly lower in myocarditis compared with dcSSc patients (1051.0 (1027.0, 1099.0) vs. 1120.0 (1065.0, 1170.0), p < 0.001 and 28.0 (26.0, 30.0) vs. 31.5 (30.0, 33.0), p < 0.001, respectively). The original Lake Louise criteria (LLc) were positive in 34 (100%) myocarditis and 40 (69%) dcSSc patients, while the updated LLc were positive in 32 (94%) and 44 (76%) patients, respectively. Both criteria had good agreement with greater but nonsignificant discordance in dcSSc patients. Conclusions: ~25% of dcSSc patients with suspected myocardial inflammation had no CMR evidence of acute inflammatory processes. T1-based indices should not be used by themselves as surrogates of acute myocardial inflammation in dcSSc patients.