scholarly journals Hypereosinophilic syndrome with characteristic left ventricular thrombus demonstrated by contrast echocardiography

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 169-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Adams ◽  
J. P. Dal-Bianco ◽  
G. Kumar ◽  
M. J. Callahan
Circulation ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (suppl_16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G Krauser ◽  
Michael Ross ◽  
James K Min ◽  
Matthew D Cham ◽  
Mary J Roman ◽  
...  

Background Accurate detection of left ventricular thrombus (LVT) affects clinical management of at risk pts. CE-MRI identifies LVT based on tissue characteristics and has been validated as a highly sensitive technique that improves LVT detection vs non-contrast echo. However prior comparative studies were performed without echo contrast agents, which can improve echo LVT detection. We studied diagnostic performance of contrast (C-ECHO) and non-contrast echo (NC-ECHO) vs a reference of CE-MRI for LVT detection. Methods We prospectively enrolled pts with ejection fraction (EF) <50% referred for CE-MRI (1.5 T) to evaluate for LVT. NC-ECHO and C-ECHO (Definity; perflutren lipid microspheres) were performed within 7 (mean 1.2 ± 1.6) days of CE-MRI. Studies were interpreted blinded to results of the other modality. LVT were scored for location, volume and type (mural or intracavitary). EF was measured by cine-MRI planimetry. Cine and CE-MRI were scored via a 17 segment model to quantify wall motion and scar. Results 80 pts were studied (age 63 ± 13, 90% CAD, NYHA 2.4 ± 0.7). CE-MRI identified LVT in 25 pts (31%). 84% of LVT were apically located; 32% were mural. All LVT were adjacent to myocardial scar. Pts with LVT by CE-MRI had larger transmural scar size (25 vs 16% of LV segments; p = 0.01) but similar EF (30 vs 33%; p = 0.4) and wall motion score index (2.3 vs 2.1; p = 0.4) to those without LVT. C-ECHO had nearly 2 fold higher diagnostic sensitivity (p = 0.02) and improved accuracy (p = 0.02) vs NC-ECHO (table ). However, C-ECHO did not detect 32% of LVT identified by CE-MRI. LVT missed by C-ECHO were more likely to be mural (p < 0.01). Apically located LVT were more likely to be missed when small (0.9 vs 4.1 cm3; p = 0.01) while detection of non-apical LVT was independent of size. Conclusions While echo contrast improves diagnostic performance for LVT, a substantial number of LVT identified by CE-MRI are not detected by C-ECHO. LVT missed by C-ECHO are typically mural in shape or, if apical, small in volume. Left Ventricular Thrombus Detected by CE-MRI (n = 25)


1994 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 516
Author(s):  
Jun Ho Lee ◽  
Yun Nyun Kim ◽  
Seung Ho Huh ◽  
Sang Gon Lee ◽  
Jeong Suk Heo ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 99 (12) ◽  
pp. 1667-1670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Mansencal ◽  
Imad Abi Nasr ◽  
Rémy Pillière ◽  
Jean-Christian Farcot ◽  
Thierry Joseph ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 478-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Seong Kim ◽  
Samina Park ◽  
Hyung-Kwan Kim ◽  
Yun-Seok Jeon ◽  
Seung-Kee Min ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 462-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Marc J. Siebelink ◽  
Arthur J.H.A. Scholte ◽  
Nico R. Van de Veire ◽  
Eduard R. Holman ◽  
Gaetano Nucifora ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Wada ◽  
Takanori Yasu ◽  
Kenichi Sakakura ◽  
Yuki Hayakawa ◽  
Takeshi Ishida ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document