4.2 Article

Regional myocardial damage and active inflammation in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis detected by non-invasive multi-modal imaging

Journal

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 135-143

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-016-1136-1

Keywords

Cardiac sarcoidosis; Myocardial perfusion; Positron emission tomography; Cardiac magnetic resonance; Fatty acid metabolism

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09129] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) can be diagnosed using F-18-FDG-PET/CT (PET), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), and I-123-BMIPP/(TlCl)-Tl-201 dual myocardial SPECT. This study aims to clarify the relationships among the three modalities with respect to CS. We evaluated 16 patients (male n = 11; age 55 +/- 13 years) with confirmed CS who underwent PET, CMR, and dual SPECT with gated SPECT before starting steroid therapy. The left ventricular myocardium was divided into 17 segments to obtain SUVmax for PET images, defect scores from 0 to 4 (0 normal; 4 absent), and mismatch scores for dual SPECT (BMDS, TLDS, and MS) images and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) scores (0 none; 1 partly positive; 2 homogeneous) on CMR images. Summed BMDS, TLDS, and MS were 18.6 +/- 12.6, 12.9 +/- 10.9, and 5.7 +/- 3.1, respectively. The segmental BMDS and TLDS scores became significantly higher as the LGE scores increased. The MS scores were significantly higher in areas of LGE with a score of 1 than 0 (both, p < 0.001), but did not significantly differ between areas with LGE scores of 1 and 2. The SUVmax was significantly higher in LGE areas with a score of 1 than 0 (p < 0.025), but did not significantly differ between those with scores of 1 or 2. Regions with a higher SUVmax indicating active myocardial inflammation were mainly located in areas with LGE, where BMIPP and TL mismatches were evident in patients with CS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available