Cargando…

Cardiac magnetic resonance based deformation imaging: role of feature tracking in athletes with suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

Both, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and regular training are associated with right ventricular (RV) remodelling. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is given an important role in the diagnosis of ARVC in current task force criteria (TFC), however, they contain no cut-off values...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Czimbalmos, Csilla, Csecs, Ibolya, Dohy, Zsofia, Toth, Attila, Suhai, Ferenc Imre, Müssigbrodt, Andreas, Kiss, Orsolya, Geller, Laszlo, Merkely, Bela, Vago, Hajnalka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453871/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30382474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-018-1478-y
Descripción
Sumario:Both, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and regular training are associated with right ventricular (RV) remodelling. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is given an important role in the diagnosis of ARVC in current task force criteria (TFC), however, they contain no cut-off values for athletes. We aimed to confirm the added value of feature tracking and to provide new cut-off values to differentiate between ARVC and athlete’s heart. Healthy athletes with training of minimal 15 h/week (n = 34), patients with definite ARVC (n = 34) and highly trained athletes with ARVC (n = 8) were examined by CMR. Left and right ventricular volumes and masses were determined. Global right and left ventricular, and regional strain analysis for the RV free wall was performed using feature tracking on balanced steady-state free precession cine images. 94% of healthy athletes showed RV dilatation of the proposed TFC, 14.7% showed RV ejection fraction (RVEF) between 45–50%, none of them had RVEF < 45%. Although RVEF showed the highest accuracy in differentiating between athlete’s heart and ARVC, only 37.5% of athletes with ARVC showed RVEF < 45%. The only parameters falling in the pathological range (based on our established cut-off values: > − 25.6 and > − 1.4, respectively) in all athletes with ARVC were the strain and strain rate of the midventricular RV free wall. Establishing RVEF and RV strain analysis provides an important tool to distinguish ARVC from athlete’s heart. CMR based regional strain and strain rate values may help to identify ARVC even in highly trained athletes with preserved RVEF.