The amount of late gadolinium enhancement outperforms current guideline-recommended criteria in the identification of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy at risk of sudden cardiac death

• Autor(a) principal: Freitas, P
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Ferreira, AM, Arteaga-Fernández, E, de Oliveira Antunes, M, Mesquita, J, Abecasis, J, Marques, H, Saraiva, C, Matos, DN, Rodrigues, R, Cardim, N, Mady, C, Rochitte, CE
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/31692
• topic: Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic/diagnostic imaging; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Gadolinium; Risk Assessment; Cardiomiopatia Hipertrófica; Morte Súbita Cardíaca; Gadolínio; Medição de Risco

BACKGROUND: Identifying the patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in whom the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) justifies the implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention remains challenging. Different risk stratification and criteria are used by the European and American guidelines in this setting. We sought to evaluate the role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in improving these risk stratification strategies. METHODS: We conducted a multicentric retrospective analysis of HCM patients who underwent CMR for diagnostic confirmation and/or risk stratification. Eligibility for ICD was assessed according to the HCM Risk-SCD score and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) algorithm. The amount of LGE was quantified (LGE%) and categorized as 0%, 0.1-10%, 10.1-19.9% and ≥ 20%. The primary endpoint was a composite of SCD, aborted SCD, sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), or appropriate ICD discharge. RESULTS: A total of 493 patients were available for analysis (58% male, median age 46 years). LGE was present in 79% of patients, with a median LGE% of 2.9% (IQR 0.4-8.4%). The concordance between risk assessment by the HCM Risk-SCD, ACCF/AHA and LGE was relatively weak. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR 1.5-6.8 years), 23 patients experienced an event (12 SCDs, 6 appropriate ICD discharges and 5 sustained VTs). The amount of LGE was the only independent predictor of outcome (adjusted HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04-1.12; p <  0.001) after adjustment for the HCM Risk-SCD and ACCF/AHA criteria. The amount of LGE showed greater discriminative power (C-statistic 0.84; 95% CI: 0.76-0.91) than the ACCF/AHA (C-statistic 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49-0.72; p for comparison < 0.001) and the HCM Risk-SCD (C-statistic 0.68; 95% CI: 0.59-0.78; p for comparison = 0.006). LGE was able to increase the discriminative power of the ACCF/AHA and HCM Risk-SCD criteria, with net reclassification improvements of 0.36 (p = 0.021) and 0.43 (p = 0.011), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of LGE seems to outperform the HCM Risk-SCD score and the ACCF/AHA algorithm in the identification of HCM patients at increased risk of SCD and reclassifies a relevant proportion of patients.