European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026
Subendocardium-involved late gadolinium enhancement in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy improves risk stratification of sudden cardiac death.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jia Xi, Zhao Kankan, Dong Zhixiang, Ma Xuan, Yang Kai, Yang Shujuan, Wang Jiaxin, Tang Yun, Wei Zhuxin, Zhou Pengyu, Liu Yujie, Chen Xingrui, Xu Wenqing, Aisikaier Kaisaierjiang, Sa Fen, Chen Xiuyu, Zhao Shihua
Аннотация
AIMS: The prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) phenotypes-particularly subendocardial involvement-for sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains unclear in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Whether LGE phenotype integrating pattern and location can improve SCD risk stratification is an unmet need.
METHODS AND RESULTS: DCM patients who underwent cardiac MRI were retrospectively enrolled. The endpoint was a composite of SCD and surrogate SCD events. Among 902 patients (mean age 46 ± 14 years, 78.7% men), subendocardium-involved and mid-wall LGE were observed in 129 (14.3%) and 263 (29.1%) patients, predominantly involving the lateral (65.1%) and septal wall (97.7%), respectively. During a median follow-up of 77 months (IQR 40-92 months), 51 (5.7%) patients experienced SCD events. Multivariable analysis identified septal mid-wall LGE (HR 3.59; 95% CI 1.73-7.47; P = 0.001) and lateral subendocardium-involved LGE (HR 3.07; 95% CI 1.39-6.75; P = 0.005) as independent predictors. A three-tier risk stratification model was developed, classifying patients into: lowest risk (neither septal mid-wall nor lateral subendocardium-involved LGE; reference), intermediate risk (either phenotype alone; HR 4.8, 95% CI 2.2-10.46, P < 0.001), and highest risk (both phenotypes; HR 10.71, 95% CI 3.53-32.46, P < 0.001). The model showed the best improvement in model discrimination and reclassification over left ventricular ejection fraction (C-statistic improvement: 0.23; net reclassification improvement = 0.67; integrative discrimination index = 0.27; all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: SCD was predicted by both lateral subendocardium-involved LGE and septal mid-wall LGE in DCM. The novel SCD risk model integrating these phenotypes demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared with conventional prognosticators.
METHODS AND RESULTS: DCM patients who underwent cardiac MRI were retrospectively enrolled. The endpoint was a composite of SCD and surrogate SCD events. Among 902 patients (mean age 46 ± 14 years, 78.7% men), subendocardium-involved and mid-wall LGE were observed in 129 (14.3%) and 263 (29.1%) patients, predominantly involving the lateral (65.1%) and septal wall (97.7%), respectively. During a median follow-up of 77 months (IQR 40-92 months), 51 (5.7%) patients experienced SCD events. Multivariable analysis identified septal mid-wall LGE (HR 3.59; 95% CI 1.73-7.47; P = 0.001) and lateral subendocardium-involved LGE (HR 3.07; 95% CI 1.39-6.75; P = 0.005) as independent predictors. A three-tier risk stratification model was developed, classifying patients into: lowest risk (neither septal mid-wall nor lateral subendocardium-involved LGE; reference), intermediate risk (either phenotype alone; HR 4.8, 95% CI 2.2-10.46, P < 0.001), and highest risk (both phenotypes; HR 10.71, 95% CI 3.53-32.46, P < 0.001). The model showed the best improvement in model discrimination and reclassification over left ventricular ejection fraction (C-statistic improvement: 0.23; net reclassification improvement = 0.67; integrative discrimination index = 0.27; all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: SCD was predicted by both lateral subendocardium-involved LGE and septal mid-wall LGE in DCM. The novel SCD risk model integrating these phenotypes demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared with conventional prognosticators.