JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2023
Prognostic Value of RV Abnormalities on CMR in Patients With Known or Suspected Cardiac Sarcoidosis.
МетаанализСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Wang Jie, Zhang Jinquan, Hosadurg Nisha, Iwanaga Yoshitaka, Chen Yuxin, Liu Wei, Wan Ke, Patel Amit R, Wicks Eleanor C, Gkoutos Georgios V, Han Yuchi, Chen Yucheng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular abnormalities in cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) are associated with adverse cardiovascular events, whereas the prognostic value of right ventricular (RV) involvement found on cardiac magnetic resonance is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically assess the prognostic value of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and RV late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in known or suspected CS.
METHODS: This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302579). PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies that evaluated the association between RVEF or RV LGE on clinical outcomes in CS. A composite endpoint of all-cause death, cardiovascular events, or sudden cardiac death (SCD) was used. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled risk ratio (RR) for these adverse events. The calculated sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve with 95% CIs were weighted and summarized.
RESULTS: Eight studies including a total of 899 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 3.2 ± 0.7 years were included. The pooled RR of RV systolic dysfunction was 3.1 (95% CI: 1.7-5.5; P < 0.01) for composite events and 3.0 (95% CI: 1.3-7.0; P < 0.01) for SCD events. In addition, CS patients with RV LGE had a significant risk for composite events (RR: 4.8 [95% CI: 2.4-9.6]; P < 0.01) and a higher risk for SCD (RR: 9.5 [95% CI: 4.4-20.5]; P < 0.01) than patients without RV LGE. Furthermore, the pooled area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of RV LGE for identifying patients with CS who were at highest SCD risk were 0.8 (95% CI: 0.8-0.9), 69% (95% CI: 50%-84%), and 90% (95% CI: 70%-97%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with known or suspected CS, RVEF and RV LGE were both associated with adverse events. Furthermore, RV LGE shows good discrimination in identifying CS patients at high risk of SCD.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically assess the prognostic value of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and RV late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in known or suspected CS.
METHODS: This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302579). PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies that evaluated the association between RVEF or RV LGE on clinical outcomes in CS. A composite endpoint of all-cause death, cardiovascular events, or sudden cardiac death (SCD) was used. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled risk ratio (RR) for these adverse events. The calculated sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve with 95% CIs were weighted and summarized.
RESULTS: Eight studies including a total of 899 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 3.2 ± 0.7 years were included. The pooled RR of RV systolic dysfunction was 3.1 (95% CI: 1.7-5.5; P < 0.01) for composite events and 3.0 (95% CI: 1.3-7.0; P < 0.01) for SCD events. In addition, CS patients with RV LGE had a significant risk for composite events (RR: 4.8 [95% CI: 2.4-9.6]; P < 0.01) and a higher risk for SCD (RR: 9.5 [95% CI: 4.4-20.5]; P < 0.01) than patients without RV LGE. Furthermore, the pooled area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of RV LGE for identifying patients with CS who were at highest SCD risk were 0.8 (95% CI: 0.8-0.9), 69% (95% CI: 50%-84%), and 90% (95% CI: 70%-97%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with known or suspected CS, RVEF and RV LGE were both associated with adverse events. Furthermore, RV LGE shows good discrimination in identifying CS patients at high risk of SCD.