Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (May 2020)

Clinical utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators presenting with electrical instability or worsening heart failure symptoms

  • Frank Lindemann,
  • Sabrina Oebel,
  • Ingo Paetsch,
  • Arash Arya,
  • Nikolaos Dagres,
  • Sergio Richter,
  • Borislav Dinov,
  • Sebastian Hilbert,
  • Susanne Loebe,
  • Clara Stegmann,
  • Michael Doering,
  • Andreas Bollmann,
  • Gerhard Hindricks,
  • Cosima Jahnke

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00609-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Data on the usefulness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for clinical decision making in patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are scarce. The present study determined the impact of CMR imaging on diagnostic stratification and treatment decisions in ICD patients presenting with electrical instability or progressive heart failure symptoms. Methods 212 consecutive ICD patients underwent 1.5 T CMR combining diagnostic imaging modules tailored to the individual clinical indication (ventricular function assessment, myocardial tissue characterization, adenosine stress-perfusion, 3D-contrast-enhanced angiography); four CMR examinations (4/212, 2%) were excluded due to non-diagnostic CMR image quality. The resultant change in diagnosis or clinical management was determined in the overall population and compared between ICD patients for primary (115/208, 55%) or secondary prevention (93/208, 45%). Referral indication consisted of documented ventricular tachycardia, inadequate device therapy or progressive heart failure symptoms. Results Overall, CMR imaging data changed diagnosis in 40% (83/208) with a significant difference between primary versus secondary prevention ICD patients (37/115, 32% versus 46/93, 49%, respectively; p = 0.01). The information gain from CMR led to an overall change in treatment in 21% (43/208) with a similar distribution in primary versus secondary prevention ICD patients (25/115,22% versus 18/93,19%, p = 0.67). The effect on treatment change was highest in patients initially scheduled for ventricular tachycardia ablation procedure (18/141, 13%) with revision of the treatment plan to medical therapy or coronary revascularization. Conclusions CMR imaging in ICD patients presenting with electrical instability or worsening heart failure symptoms provided diagnostic or management-changing information in a considerable proportion (40% and 21%, respectively).

Keywords