Cargando…

Patients who do not fulfill criteria for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy but have unexplained giant T-wave inversion: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance mid-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND: Patients who have unexplained giant T-wave inversions but do not meet criteria for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (left ventricular (LV) wall thickness < 1.5 cm) demonstrate LV apical morphological features that differ from healthy subjects. Currently, it remains unknown how the ab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Shuang, He, Jian, Xu, Jing, Zhuang, Baiyan, Wu, Bailing, Wei, Bingqi, Huang, Jinghan, Yin, Gang, Chen, Xiuyu, Zhu, Zhenhui, Wang, Hao, Zhao, Shihua, Lu, Minjie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8173876/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34078401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00700-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Patients who have unexplained giant T-wave inversions but do not meet criteria for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (left ventricular (LV) wall thickness < 1.5 cm) demonstrate LV apical morphological features that differ from healthy subjects. Currently, it remains unknown how the abnormal LV apical morphology in this patient population changes over time. The purpose of this study was to investigate LV morphological and functional changes in these patients using a mid-term cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) exam. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with unexplained giant T-wave inversion who did not fulfill HCM criteria were studied. The mean interval time of the follow-up CMR was 24.4 ± 8.3 months. The LV wall thickness was measured in each LV segment according to the American Heart Association 17-segmented model. The apical angle (ApA) was also measured. A receiver operating curve (ROC) was used to identify the predictive values of the CMR variables. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 16 (22.5%) progressed to typical apical HCM, while 55 (77.5%) did not progress to HCM criteria. The mean apical wall thickness was significantly different between the two groups at both baseline and follow-up, with the apical HCM group having greater wall thickness at both time points (all p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the change of ApA (− 1.5 ± 2.7°/yr vs. − 0.7 ± 2.0°/yr, p < 0.001) over time. The combination of mean apical wall thickness and ApA proved to be the best predictor for fulfilling criteria for apical HCM with a threshold value of 8.1 mm and 90° (sensitivity 93.8%, specificity 85.5%). CONCLUSIONS: CMR metrics identify predictors for progression to HCM in patients with unexplained giant T-wave inversion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-020-00700-5.