Contrast-enhanced anatomic imaging as compared to contrast-enhanced tissue characterization for detection of left ventricular thrombus.

TitleContrast-enhanced anatomic imaging as compared to contrast-enhanced tissue characterization for detection of left ventricular thrombus.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2009
AuthorsWeinsaft JW, Kim RJ, Ross M, Krauser D, Manoushagian S, LaBounty TM, Cham MD, Min JK, Healy K, Wang Y, Parker M, Roman MJ, Devereux RB
JournalJACC Cardiovasc Imaging
Volume2
Issue8
Pagination969-79
Date Published2009 Aug
ISSN1876-7591
KeywordsAged, Contrast Media, Echocardiography, Female, Heart Diseases, Heart Failure, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Observer Variation, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Registries, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stroke Volume, Thrombosis, Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
Abstract

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.

DOI10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.03.017
Alternate JournalJACC Cardiovasc Imaging
PubMed ID19679285
PubMed Central IDPMC5057386
Grant ListK23 HL102249 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States
Related Institute: 
MRI Research Institute (MRIRI)

Weill Cornell Medicine
Department of Radiology
525 East 68th Street New York, NY 10065