Time course of eosinophilic myocarditis visualized by CMR

We report the diagnostic potential of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to visualize the time course of eosinophilic myocarditis upon successful treatment. A 50-year-old man was admitted with a progressive heart failure. Endomyocardial biopsies were taken from the left ventricle because of a white blood cell count of 17000/mm3 with 41% eosinophils. Histological evaluation revealed endomyocardial eosinophilic infiltration and areas of myocyte necrosis. The patient was diagnosed with hypereosinophilic myocarditis due to idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome. CMR-studies at presentation and a follow-up study 3 weeks later showed diffuse subendocardial LGE in the whole left ventricle. Upon treatment with steroids, CMR-studies revealed marked reduction of subendocardial LGE after 3 months in parallel with further clinical improvement. This case therefore highlights the clinical importance of CMR to visualize the extent of endomyocardial involvement in the diagnosis and treatment of eosinophilic myocarditis

Electrocardiographic diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in aortic valve disease: evaluation of ECG criteria by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a hallmark of chronic pressure or volume overload of the left ventricle and is associated with risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The purpose was to evaluate different electrocardiographic criteria for LVH as determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Additionally, the effects of concentric and eccentric LVH on depolarization and repolarization were assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>120 patients with aortic valve disease and 30 healthy volunteers were analysed. As ECG criteria for LVH, we assessed the Sokolow-Lyon voltage/product, Gubner-Ungerleider voltage, Cornell voltage/product, Perugia-score and Romhilt-Estes score.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All ECG criteria demonstrated a significant correlation with LV mass and chamber size. The highest predictive values were achieved by the Romhilt-Estes score 4 points with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 81%. There was no difference in all ECG criteria between concentric and eccentric LVH. However, the intrinsicoid deflection (V6 37 ± 1.0 ms vs. 43 ± 1.6 ms, p < 0.05) was shorter in concentric LVH than in eccentric LVH and amplitudes of ST-segment (V5 -0.06 ± 0.01 vs. -0.02 ± 0.01) and T-wave (V5 -0.03 ± 0.04 vs. 0.18 ± 0.05) in the anterolateral leads (p < 0.05) were deeper.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>By calibration with CMR, a wide range of predictive values was found for the various ECG criteria for LVH with the most favourable results for the Romhilt-Estes score. As electrocardiographic correlate for concentric LVH as compared with eccentric LVH, a shorter intrinsicoid deflection and a significant ST-segment and T-wave depression in the anterolateral leads was noted.</p

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of the aortic valve stenosis: an in vivo and ex vivo study

Background Aortic valve area (AVA) estimation in patients with aortic stenosis may be obtained using several methods. This study was undertaken to verify the cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) planimetry of aortic stenosis by comparing the findings with invasive catheterization, transthoracic (TTE) as well as tranesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and anatomic CMR examination of autopsy specimens. Methods Our study was performed in eight patients with aortic valve stenosis. Aortic stenosis was determined by TTE and TEE as well as catheterization and CMR. Especially, after aortic valve replacement, the explanted aortic valves were examined again with CMR ex vivo model. Results The mean AVA determined in vivo by CMR was 0.75 ± 0.09 cm 2 and ex vivo by CMR was 0.65 ± 0.09 cm 2 and was closely correlated (r = 0.91, p < 0.001). The mean absolute difference between AVA derived by CMR ex vivo and in vivo was −0.10 ± 0.04 cm 2 . The mean AVA using TTE was 0.69 ± 0.07 with a significant correlation between CMR ex vivo (r = 0.85, p < 0.007) and CMR in vivo (r = 0.86, p < 0.008). CMR ex vivo and in vivo had no significant correlation with AVA using Gorlin formula by invasive catheterization or using planimetry by TEE. Conclusion In this small study using an ex vivo aortic valve stenosis model, the aortic valve area can be reliably planimetered by CMR in vivo and ex vivo with a well correlation between geometric AVA by CMR and the effective AVA calculated by TTE