European radiology · 2024
Role of cardiac magnetic resonance in stratifying arrhythmogenic risk in mitral valve prolapse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gatti Marco, Santonocito Ambra, Papa Francesco Pio, D'Ascenzo Fabrizio, De Filippo Ovidio, Gallone Guglielmo, Palmisano Anna, Pistelli Lorenzo, De Ferrari Gaetano Maria, Esposito Antonio, Giustetto Carla, Fonio Paolo, Faletti Riccardo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) features for arrhythmic risk stratification in mitral valve prolapse (MVP) patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting MVP patients who underwent CMR with assessment of: left ventricular (LV) size and function, mitral regurgitation (MR), prolapse distance, mitral annular disjunction (MAD), curling, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), and T1 mapping, and reported the association with arrhythmia. The primary endpoint was complex ventricular arrhythmias (co-VAs) as defined by any non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or aborted sudden cardiac death. Meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies investigated a CMR feature. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023374185.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 11 studies with 1278 patients. MR severity, leaflet length/thickness, curling, MAD distance, and mapping techniques were not meta-analyzed as reported in < 3 studies. LV end-diastolic volume index, LV ejection fraction, and prolapse distance showed small non-significant effect sizes. LGE showed a strong and significant association with co-VA with a LogORs of 2.12 (95% confidence interval (CI): [1.00, 3.23]), for MAD the log odds-ratio was 0.95 (95% CI: [0.30, 1.60]). The predictive accuracy of LGE was substantial, with a hierarchical summary ROC AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: [0.69, 0.91]) and sensitivity and specificity rates of 0.70 (95% CI: [0.41, 0.89]) and 0.80 (95% CI: [0.67, 0.89]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the role of LGE as the key CMR feature for arrhythmia risk stratification in MVP patients. MAD might complement arrhythmic risk stratification.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: LGE is a key factor for arrhythmogenic risk in MVP patients, with additional contribution from MAD. Combining MRI findings with clinical characteristics is critical for evaluating and accurately stratifying arrhythmogenic risk in MVP patients.
KEY POINTS: MVP affects 2-3% of the population, with some facing increased risk for arrhythmia. LGE can assess arrhythmia risk, and MAD may further stratify patients. CMR is critical for MVP arrhythmia risk stratification, making it essential in a comprehensive evaluation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting MVP patients who underwent CMR with assessment of: left ventricular (LV) size and function, mitral regurgitation (MR), prolapse distance, mitral annular disjunction (MAD), curling, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), and T1 mapping, and reported the association with arrhythmia. The primary endpoint was complex ventricular arrhythmias (co-VAs) as defined by any non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or aborted sudden cardiac death. Meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies investigated a CMR feature. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023374185.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 11 studies with 1278 patients. MR severity, leaflet length/thickness, curling, MAD distance, and mapping techniques were not meta-analyzed as reported in < 3 studies. LV end-diastolic volume index, LV ejection fraction, and prolapse distance showed small non-significant effect sizes. LGE showed a strong and significant association with co-VA with a LogORs of 2.12 (95% confidence interval (CI): [1.00, 3.23]), for MAD the log odds-ratio was 0.95 (95% CI: [0.30, 1.60]). The predictive accuracy of LGE was substantial, with a hierarchical summary ROC AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: [0.69, 0.91]) and sensitivity and specificity rates of 0.70 (95% CI: [0.41, 0.89]) and 0.80 (95% CI: [0.67, 0.89]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the role of LGE as the key CMR feature for arrhythmia risk stratification in MVP patients. MAD might complement arrhythmic risk stratification.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: LGE is a key factor for arrhythmogenic risk in MVP patients, with additional contribution from MAD. Combining MRI findings with clinical characteristics is critical for evaluating and accurately stratifying arrhythmogenic risk in MVP patients.
KEY POINTS: MVP affects 2-3% of the population, with some facing increased risk for arrhythmia. LGE can assess arrhythmia risk, and MAD may further stratify patients. CMR is critical for MVP arrhythmia risk stratification, making it essential in a comprehensive evaluation.