This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Weinsaft, J. W. Articles by Devereux, R. B. PubMed Articles by Weinsaft, J. W. Articles by Devereux, R. B.

Contrast-Enhanced Anatomic Imaging as Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Tissue Characterization for Detection of Left Ventricular Thrombus

Jonathan W. Weinsaft, MD^_*,,_*, Raymond J. Kim, MD, Michael Ross, MD^_*, Daniel Krauser, MD^_*, Shant Manoushagian, BA^_*, Troy M. LaBounty, MD^_*, Matthew D. Cham, MD^_*,, James K. Min, MD^_*,, Kirsten Healy, MD^_*, Yi Wang, PhD, Michele Parker, MS, RN, Mary J. Roman, MD^_*, Richard B. Devereux, MD^_*

^_* Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
Duke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Jonathan W. Weinsaft, Weill Cornell Medical College, 525 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10021 (Email: jww2001{at}med.cornell.edu).

Objectives: This study sought to compare contrast-enhanced anatomic imaging and contrast-enhanced tissue characterization (delayed-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance [DE-CMR]) for left ventricular (LV) thrombus detection.

Background: Contrast echocardiography (echo) detects LV thrombus based on anatomic appearance, whereas DE-CMR imaging detects thrombus based on tissue characteristics. Although DE-CMR has been validated as an accurate technique for thrombus, its utility compared with contrast echo is unknown.

Methods: Multimodality imaging was performed in 121 patients at high risk for thrombus due to myocardial infarction or heart failure. Imaging included 3 anatomic imaging techniques for thrombus detection (contrast echo, noncontrast echo, cine-CMR) and a reference of DE-CMR tissue characterization. LV structural parameters were quantified to identify markers for thrombus and predictors of additive utility of contrast-enhanced thrombus imaging.

Results: Twenty-four patients had thrombus by DE-CMR. Patients with thrombus had larger infarcts (by DE-CMR), more aneurysms, and lower LV ejection fraction (by CMR and echo) than those without thrombus. Contrast echo nearly doubled sensitivity (61% vs. 33%, p < 0.05) and yielded improved accuracy (92% vs. 82%, p < 0.01) versus noncontrast echo. Patients who derived incremental diagnostic utility from DE-CMR had lower LV ejection fraction versus those in whom noncontrast echo alone accurately assessed thrombus (35 ± 9% vs. 42 ± 14%, p < 0.01), with a similar trend for patients who derived incremental benefit from contrast echo (p = 0.08). Contrast echo and cine-CMR closely agreed on the diagnosis of thrombus ( = 0.79, p < 0.001). Thrombus prevalence was lower by contrast echo than DE-CMR (p < 0.05). Thrombus detected by DE-CMR but not by contrast echo was more likely to be mural in shape or, when apical, small in volume (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Echo contrast in high-risk patients markedly improves detection of LV thrombus, but does not detect a substantial number of thrombi identified by DE-CMR tissue characterization. Thrombi detected by DE-CMR but not by contrast echo are typically mural in shape or small in volume.

Key Words: thrombus • cardiac magnetic resonance • echocardiography

Abbreviations and Acronyms   CMR = cardiac magnetic resonance   DE = delayed-enhancement   echo = echocardiography   LV = left ventricular   LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction   MVO = microvascular obstruction   TI = inversion time