Premium
Direct comparison of the diagnostic capability of cardiac magnetic resonance and endomyocardial biopsy in patients with heart failure
Author(s) -
Yoshida Akemi,
IshibashiUeda Hatsue,
Yamada Naoaki,
Kanzaki Hideaki,
Hasegawa Takuya,
Takahama Hiroyuki,
Amaki Makoto,
Asakura Masanori,
Kitakaze Masafumi
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
european journal of heart failure
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 5.149
H-Index - 133
eISSN - 1879-0844
pISSN - 1388-9842
DOI - 10.1093/eurjhf/hfs206
Subject(s) - medicine , heart failure , cardiology , gold standard (test) , medical diagnosis , cardiac magnetic resonance imaging , magnetic resonance imaging , dilated cardiomyopathy , hypertrophic cardiomyopathy , cardiac magnetic resonance , endomyocardial biopsy , radiology , cardiomyopathy
Aims The diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has not been compared with that of other imaging modalities. Therefore, this study investigated the diagnostic capabilities of CMR and endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) in patients with heart failure (HF). Methods and results We studied 136 patients with cardiomyopathy who underwent both CMR and EMB. Independent diagnoses were made according to the results of (i) CMR alone; (ii) EMB alone; (iii) clinical data plus echocardiogram; (iv) clinical data, echocardiogram, plus CMR; and (v) clinical data, echocardiogram, plus EMB. These diagnoses were then compared with the final diagnosis (gold standard) that was made using the complete clinical data, including EMB and CMR. The sensitivities of the diagnosis strategies of (i–v) relative to the final diagnosis were 67, 79, 86, 97, and 100%, respectively. CMR alone demonstrated better sensitivity for cardiac sarcoidosis and greater specificity for dilated cardiomyopathy than EMB alone. CMR also tended to show better sensitivity for hypertensive heart disease. There was no difference between the diagnostic capability of CMR and EMB for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, CMR showed excellent sensitivity (100%) for apical and obstructive HCM, whereas EMB displayed better sensitivity for dilated HCM. Moreover, combined diagnosis with clinical data, echocardiogram, plus CMR achieved superior agreement with the final diagnosis in comparison with EMB alone. Conclusion Non‐invasive CMR demonstrated excellent diagnostic capability for patients with HF and was as effective as or superior to EMB. In particular, the use of CMR in combination with clinical data unrelated to EMB may provide excellent diagnostic accuracy for HF.