Comparison of Morphologic Assessment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy by Magnetic Resonance Versus Echocardiographic Imaging

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology 1997-06, Vol.79 (12), p.1651-1656
• Main Authors: Pons-Lladó, Guillem, Carreras, Francesc, Borrás, Xavier, Palmer, Jaume, Llauger, Jaume, Bayés de Luna, Antonio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic - diagnostic imaging; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic - pathology; Cardiovascular disease; Comparative studies; Echocardiography; Echocardiography, Doppler; Female; Heart; Humans; Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular - diagnostic imaging; Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular - pathology; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Myocarditis. Cardiomyopathies; NMR; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Ultrasonic imaging
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00216-6

To compare the value of echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of the amount and extent of hypertrophy in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) and, second, to correlate the degree of hypertrophy, as assessed by MRI, with clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, 30 consecutive patients (16 men and 14 women, aged 20 to 74 years) with HC were studied. Measurements of left ventricular wall thickness were performed at 11 predetermined segments (5 basal, 5 midventricular, and 1 apical) by 2-dimensional echocardiography and MRI. Two parameters derived from MRI studies were considered as indicators of the degree and extent of hypertrophy: (1) mean of the measured wall thickness at the 11 segments, and (2) the number of segments with thickness >15 mm. Results showed that, from a total of 330 myocardial segments, thickness could be measured by echocardiography in 221 (67%), whereas MRI allowed measurement of 320 segments (97%). When compared with clinical and electrocardiographic data, no correlation was found regarding mean wall thickness and number of hypertrophied segments by MRI except for the presence of an abnormal electrocardiographic repolarization pattern. It is concluded that MRI allows a better assessment of the degree and extension of left ventricular hypertrophy than echocardiography in HC. Despite the precise information on hypertrophy provided by MRI, the amount and degree of hypertrophy bears no correlation with most of the clinical data in these patients. A comparison of echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging in the study of the degree and extension of the hypertrophic process in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the present study clearly shows that magnetic resonance imaging provides a more complete assessment. When compared with clinical data, only the presence of an altered repolarization pattern in the electrocardiogram correlates with a significantly higher degree and extension of hypertrophy as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.