Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024
Assessment of Myocardial Fibrosis in Marfan Syndrome Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Demolder Anthony, Devos Dan, De Backer Julie, Muiño-Mosquera Laura
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Impaired myocardial function and arrhythmia are important manifestations of Marfan syndrome (MFS). Studies assessing myocardial fibrosis in relation to these manifestations are scarce.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, single-center study assessed ventricular volumes, ventricular function, and myocardial fibrosis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with MFS harboring a (likely) pathogenic FBN1 variant. The presence and extent of fibrosis were assessed by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and extracellular volume measurement (ECV). Data on 24-h Holter monitoring and clinical data were extracted from electronic patient records.
RESULTS: The study included 32 unselected patients with MFS (median age 38 years [range 10-69], 41% women). No focal myocardial fibrosis was detected. Six patients (21%) had diffuse fibrosis (ECV > 29%). No association was found between the presence of diffuse fibrosis and clinically relevant myocardial dysfunction. Five patients (16%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF < 55%). While all of these exhibited mitral annular disjunction (MAD), only two had ECV > 29%. Patients with MAD had increased indexed LV volumes (median end-diastolic volume, 92 mL/m2 [IQR, 78-100] vs. 78 mL/m2 [IQR, 71-87]; median end-systolic volume, 31 mL/m2 [IQR, 23-46] vs. 22 mL/m2 [IQR, 21-28]), also after adjusting for the presence of mitral and aortic valve regurgitation. No differences in ECV were seen between patients with and without MAD.
CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with MFS, focal myocardial fibrosis was not detected using CMR. Although diffuse fibrosis was observed in 21% of patients, no evident connection to clinically relevant myocardial dysfunction was found. Further studies should evaluate the impact of diffuse fibrosis on clinical outcome prediction.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, single-center study assessed ventricular volumes, ventricular function, and myocardial fibrosis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with MFS harboring a (likely) pathogenic FBN1 variant. The presence and extent of fibrosis were assessed by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and extracellular volume measurement (ECV). Data on 24-h Holter monitoring and clinical data were extracted from electronic patient records.
RESULTS: The study included 32 unselected patients with MFS (median age 38 years [range 10-69], 41% women). No focal myocardial fibrosis was detected. Six patients (21%) had diffuse fibrosis (ECV > 29%). No association was found between the presence of diffuse fibrosis and clinically relevant myocardial dysfunction. Five patients (16%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF < 55%). While all of these exhibited mitral annular disjunction (MAD), only two had ECV > 29%. Patients with MAD had increased indexed LV volumes (median end-diastolic volume, 92 mL/m2 [IQR, 78-100] vs. 78 mL/m2 [IQR, 71-87]; median end-systolic volume, 31 mL/m2 [IQR, 23-46] vs. 22 mL/m2 [IQR, 21-28]), also after adjusting for the presence of mitral and aortic valve regurgitation. No differences in ECV were seen between patients with and without MAD.
CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with MFS, focal myocardial fibrosis was not detected using CMR. Although diffuse fibrosis was observed in 21% of patients, no evident connection to clinically relevant myocardial dysfunction was found. Further studies should evaluate the impact of diffuse fibrosis on clinical outcome prediction.