English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Funding Acknowledgements The study was supported by Center for Cardiological Innovation Background Myocardial scar burden (focal fibrosis) is associated with poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and should preferably be detected prior to device implantation. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered reference standard for scar detection, but is not available in renal failure. Diffuse fibrosis is assessed by T1 mapping CMR with or without calculation of extracellular volume fraction (ECV). The method is vulnerable to partial volume effects, thus subendocardial tissue is most often not included in mapping analyses. Whether the contrast-free native T1mapping could replace LGE in the preoperative evaluation of patients referred for CRT is unknown. Purpose To investigate if native T1 mapping and calculation of ECV can adequately detect scar in patients referred for CRT. Methods Scar was quantified as percentage segmental LGE in 45 patients (age 65 ± 10 years, 71% male, QRS-width 165 ± 17ms) referred for CRT. In total 720 segments were analyzed, and LGE≥50% was considered transmural scar. T1-mapping before and after contrast agent injection was performed in all patients. ECV was calculated based on the ratio between tissue T1 relaxation change and blood T1 relaxation change after contrast agent injection, corrected for the haematocrit level. The agreement between native T1/ECV and scar was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with calculation of area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results LGE was present in 255 segments, 465 segments were without LGE. Average native T1 in segments with LGE was 1028 ± 88 ms, and 1040 ± 60 ms in segments without LGE (p = 0.16). The corresponding numbers for ECV were 38.7 ± 10.9% and 30.0 ± 4.7%, p &amp;lt; 0.001. Native T1 showed poor agreement to scar independent of scar size (AUC = 0.532, 95% CI 0.485-0.578 for scars of all sizes, and AUC = 0.572, 95% CI 0.495-0.650 for transmural scars). ECV, on the other hand, showed reasonable agreement with scar of all sizes (AUC = 0.777, 95% CI 0.739-0.815), and good agreement with transmural scars (AUC = 0.856, 95% CI 0.811-0.902). (Figure) Conclusion The contrast-free CMR technique T1 mapping does not adequately detect scars in patients referred for CRT. Adding post contrast T1 measurements and calculating ECV improves accuracy, especially for transmural scars. Future studies should investigate if diffuse fibrosis could be predictive of CRT response. Abstract P1585 Figure. Detection of transmural scars

european heart journal. cardiovascular imaging

P1585 Cardiac magnetic resonance estimated extracellular volume fraction, but not native T1 mapping, detects scar in patients referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy