Contrast-Enhanced Anatomic Imaging as Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Tissue Characterization for Detection of Left Ventricular Thrombus

被引:159
|
作者
Weinsaft, Jonathan W. [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Raymond J. [3 ]
Ross, Michael [1 ]
Krauser, Daniel [1 ]
Manoushagian, Shant [1 ]
LaBounty, Troy M. [1 ]
Cham, Matthew D. [1 ,2 ]
Min, James K. [1 ,2 ]
Healy, Kirsten [1 ]
Wang, Yi [2 ]
Parker, Michele [3 ]
Roman, Mary J. [1 ]
Devereux, Richard B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Weill Cornell Med Coll, Dept Med, Div Cardiol, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Weill Cornell Med Coll, Dept Radiol, New York, NY 10021 USA
[3] Duke Cardiovasc Magnet Resonance Ctr, Durham, NC USA
关键词
thrombus; cardiac magnetic resonance; echocardiography; CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC-RESONANCE; MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; VISUALIZATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.03.017
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare contrast-enhanced anatomic imaging and contrast-enhanced tissue characterization (delayed-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance [DE-CMR]) for left ventricular (LV) thrombus detection. BACKGROUND Contrast echocardiography (echo) detects LV thrombus based on anatomic appearance, whereas DE-CMR imaging detects thrombus based on tissue characteristics. Although DE-CMR has been validated as an accurate technique for thrombus, its utility compared with contrast echo is unknown. METHODS Multimodality imaging was performed in 121 patients at high risk for thrombus due to myocardial infarction or heart failure. Imaging included 3 anatomic imaging techniques for thrombus detection (contrast echo, noncontrast echo, cine-CMR) and a reference of DE-CMR tissue characterization. LV structural parameters were quantified to identify markers for thrombus and predictors of additive utility of contrast-enhanced thrombus imaging. RESULTS Twenty-four patients had thrombus by DE-CMR. Patients with thrombus had larger infarcts (by DE-CMR), more aneurysms, and lower LV ejection fraction (by CMR and echo) than those without thrombus. Contrast echo nearly doubled sensitivity (61% vs. 33%, p < 0.05) and yielded improved accuracy (92% vs. 82%, p < 0.01) versus noncontrast echo. Patients who derived incremental diagnostic utility from DE-CMR had lower LV ejection fraction versus those in whom noncontrast echo alone accurately assessed thrombus (35 +/- 9% vs. 42 +/- 14%, p < 0.01), with a similar trend for patients who derived incremental benefit from contrast echo (p < 0.08). Contrast echo and cine-CMR closely agreed on the diagnosis of thrombus (kappa = 0.79, p < 0.001). Thrombus prevalence was lower by contrast echo than DE-CMR (p < 0.05). Thrombus detected by DE-CMR but not by contrast echo was more likely to be mural in shape or, when apical, small in volume (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Echo contrast in high-risk patients markedly improves detection of LV thrombus, but does not detect a substantial number of thrombi identified by DE-CMR tissue characterization. Thrombi detected by DE-CMR but not by contrast echo are typically mural in shape or small in volume. (J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2009;2:969-79) (C) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
引用
收藏
页码:969 / 979
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and prediction of aggressiveness
    Baur, Alexander D. J.
    Schwabe, Julia
    Rogasch, Julian
    Maxeiner, Andreas
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    Stephan, Carsten
    Rudl, Marc
    Hamm, Bernd
    Jung, Ernst-Michael
    Fischer, Thom
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (05) : 1949 - 1960
  • [42] Contrast-enhanced sonography in the characterization of small hepatocellular carcinomas in cirrhotic patients: Comparison with contrast-enhanced ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging
    Giorgio, A
    Ferraioli, G
    de Stefano, G
    Coppola, C
    Di Sarno, A
    Del Viscovo, L
    JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2005, 42 : 93 - 94
  • [43] Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound
    Hunt, David
    Romero, Javier
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2017, 25 (04) : 725 - +
  • [44] Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound
    Xu, Hui-Xiong
    Weskott, Hans Peter
    Liu, Ji-Bin
    Zheng, Rong-Qin
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 2015
  • [45] Contrast-enhanced mammography
    Fallenberg, Eva M.
    RADIOLOGE, 2021, 61 (02): : 177 - 182
  • [46] Contrast-enhanced ultrasound
    Jaspers, N.
    Pfister, R.
    Kinkel, H.
    Michels, G.
    DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 2012, 137 (45) : 2336 - 2339
  • [47] Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography
    Block, Wesley D.
    Atri, Mostafa
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2012, 184 (14) : 1599 - 1599
  • [48] Contrast-enhanced sonography
    van de Sandt, M
    Deichert, U
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1998, 13 (11) : 3282 - 3282
  • [49] Breast Cancer Supplemental Screening: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography or Contrast-Enhanced MRI?
    Rashidi, Ali
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Sadigh, Gelareh
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2024, 21 (04)
  • [50] Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging versus Contrast-enhanced US: A Comparison in Glioblastoma Surgery by Using Intraoperative Fusion Imaging
    Prada, Francesco
    Vitale, Valerio
    Del Bene, Massimiliano
    Boffano, Carlo
    Sconfienza, Luca Maria
    Pinzi, Valentina
    Mauri, Giovanni
    Solbiati, Luigi
    Sakas, Georgios
    Kolev, Velizar
    D'Incerti, Ludovico
    DiMeco, Francesco
    RADIOLOGY, 2017, 285 (01) : 242 - 249