4.7 Article

Contrast-enhanced T1 mapping-based extracellular volume fraction independently predicts clinical outcome in patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: a prospective cohort study

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 3924-3933

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4817-9

Keywords

Extracellular space; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prognosis; Myocardium; T1 mapping

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [NRF-2015R1C1A1A02036645]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR)-based extracellular volume fraction (ECV) in patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) and compare it with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) parameters. This was a single-center, prospective, cohort study of 117 NIDCM patients (71 men, 51.9 +/- 16.7 years) who underwent clinical 3.0-T CMR. Myocardial ECV and LGE were quantified on the left ventricular myocardium. The presence of midwall LGE was also detected. Nineteen healthy subjects served as controls. The primary end points were cardiovascular (CV) events defined by CV death, rehospitalization due to heart failure, and heart transplantation. During the follow-up period (median duration, 11.2 months; 25(th)-75(th) percentile, 7.8-21.9 months), the primary end points occurred in 19 patients (16.2%). The ECV (per 3% and 1% increase) was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.80 and 1.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.20 and 1.14-1.30, respectively; p < 0.001) for the CV events. Multivariable analysis also indicated that ECV was an independent prognostic factor and had a higher prognostic value (Harrell's c statistic, 0.88) than LGE quantification values (0.77) or midwall LGE (0.80). CMR-based ECV independently predicts the clinical outcome in NIDCM patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available