The Prognostic Role of Tissue Characterisation using Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Heart Failure

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Despite significant advances in heart failure diagnostics and therapy, the prognosis remains poor, with one in three dying within a year of hospital admission. This is at least in part due to the difficulties in risk stratification and personalisation of therapy. The use of left ventricular systolic function as the main arbiter for entrance into clinical trials for drugs and advanced therapy, such as implantable defibrillators, grossly simplifies the complex heterogeneous nature of the syndrome. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance offers a wealth of data to aid in diagnosis and prognostication. The advent of novel cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping techniques allows us to glimpse some of the pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning heart failure. We review the growing prognostic evidence base using these techniques.

Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Dr Andrew Flett, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. E: Andrew.Flett@uhs.nhs.uk
Received date
03 October 2017
Accepted date
31 October 2017
Citation
Cardiac Failure Review 2017;3(2):86–96.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2017:19:1
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Rohin Francis for granting permission to use his ‘Pop heArt’ image from the 2017 Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance paper as the accompanying image for the electronic version of the article.

The current lifetime risk of heart failure is approximately one in three and the prognosis remains poor.1 The latest UK heart failure audit data reveal inpatient and 1-year mortality rates of 10 % and 27 %, respectively.2

The aetiology of heart failure is diverse, and many patients have several cardiac and non-cardiac pathologies that conspire to cause the syndrome. Currently the most common cause is ischaemic heart disease, but many patients have comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation and renal insufficiency.3–7 The identification of heart failure aetiology is crucial as this may guide subsequent decisions regarding treatment strategies such as suitability for specific evidence-based pharmacological and device therapies. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and international guidelines recommend utilising blood tests (B-type natriuretic peptide), ECG and various cardiac imaging modalities to confirm clinical suspicions of a heart failure diagnosis and investigate the underlying cause of the condition.8–10

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has become a gold standard non-invasive test in heart failure due to its unparalleled capability to not only accurately assess cardiac anatomy and function with excellent reproducibility, but also its unique ability to identify specific pathological tissue characteristics that may be diagnostic of the underlying disease process.11 In the past 2 decades there has been a rapid evolution of contrast-enhanced techniques and subsequent increases in their utilisation in clinical practice and heart failure research. This has led to a large prognostic evidence base. CMR is now recommended as the first-line imaging investigation in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,8 European9 and North American10 heart failure guidelines when transthoracic echocardiographic windows are poor or there is diagnostic uncertainly regarding aetiology. In this article, we will review these prognostic studies, concentrating on how CMR tissue characterisation can guide prognosis in heart failure.

Late Gadolinium Enhancement

Normal myocardium, blood and other tissues have specific T1 times (the time taken for longitudinal recovery of magnetisation after a radiofrequency pulse inverts the net polarisation of atoms in the body). T1-weighted images detect differences in these times, giving an intrinsic contrast between the myocardium and surrounding tissues. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) CMR is based upon the principle that gadolinium (Gd) – bound to diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid or DTPA – is excluded from the intracellular compartment but has free distribution in the extracellular space. It dramatically shortens T1 time and gives extrinsic contrast to the tissue in which it resides. In normal myocardium, where the extracellular space is small, Gd rapidly washes in and out of the tissue and so the T1 is relatively preserved. When healthy myocardium is replaced by fibrosis or “scar” tissue, the extracellular space increases yielding a larger volume of distribution for Gd and a delayed wash out. These scar areas appear brighter on T1-weighted imaging compared to healthy myocardium and the scar burden identified using this technique is well validated against histological assessment.12,13 The wealth of data around LGE and its critical prognostic importance in the whole spectrum of cardiac disease is extensively reviewed elsewhere.14–22 Here, we highlight a few issues that are of specific importance to the heart failure population.

Heart Failure Aetiology

Pathologists have known for decades that disease processes affect the myocardium in specific patterns. LGE CMR allows us to visualise these processes in vivo and identify differentiating and recognisable patterns of scarring,23,24 making LGE CMR a very powerful tool for assessing the aetiology of heart disease, see Figure 1. This is particularly true for ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) versus non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).

Early studies26 found that >10 % of heart failure patients labelled with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy had LGE patterns consistent with previous myocardial infarction. This has since been confirmed in other studies and long-term follow-up highlights the prognostic importance of making this distinction, as patients with ischaemic scarring have been shown to be almost twice as likely to have a cardiac death or heart failure hospitalisation compared to those with non-ischaemic scarring.27

The presence of scarring in any condition seems to confer an adverse prognosis.28 This is reiterated in a recent study of 670 patients with myocarditis followed for up to 7 years. The presence of LGE was associated with double the risk of major adverse cardiac events, with patchy LGE conferring the worst outcome (HR 2.9; CI 1.8–4.8) Septal and midwall patterns were also more strongly predictive of major adverse cardiac events (HR 2.6; CI 1.8–3.8).29 Conversely, the absence of LGE conferred an excellent prognosis, with an annual risk of death of just 0.3 %.

Response to Medical Therapy

Although various pharmaceutical agents have been shown to improve the prognosis of heart failure, how an individual patient will respond to these medications can vary dramatically and there remains no accurate method of predicting who will benefit from these agents. LGE has shown potential as a CMR biomarker for non-response to first-line medical therapies in heart failure. Patients with both ICM and NICM who have severely impaired systolic function are significantly less likely to have improved left ventricular (LV) function following 6 months of beta-blocker therapy if scarring is identified on CMR.30 Similar observations have been seen in NICM patients with LGE who have received optimal medical therapy, see Figure 2.31,32 Patients with scarring do not respond to medical therapy to the same extent as those without scar tissue.

Response to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Guideline-directed cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) leads to a significant improvement in quality of life33,34 and a reduction in heart failure hospitalisation35,36 and mortality.37 Despite this, approximately 30 % of these patients gain no prognostic advantage and many do not experience these improvements in symptoms and might be considered non-responders.38 Studies using CMR to investigate the potential role of LV scar tissue in this phenomenon not only found a significant correlation between increased LGE burden and non-response to CRT, but also suggested a dose–response-type relationship that predicted this outcome.39,40 The greater the scar burden, the less likely patients are to respond. The quality of the scar is also important: patients with partial-thickness and, to a greater extent, full-thickness posterolateral LGE, have a lesser response to CRT and are at significantly greater risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure rehospitalisation than those without scarring in this region, see Figure 3.41,42 The potential to utilise CMR to guide optimal response to CRT was subsequently utilised in a study (n=559) where patients who had their LV lead deployed over areas of myocardium containing scar tissue had significantly higher risk death or hospitalisation than those who were paced away from scar tissue (HR 5.57; CI 3.40–9.14; p≤0.0001), see Figure 4.43

Figure 1: Late Gadolinium Enhancement Patterns in Ischemic and Non-ischaemic Cardiomyopathies

Open in new tab

Figure 2: Influence of Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) on Left Ventricular Remodelling in Patients Treated with Optimal Medical Therapy

Open in new tab

Advances in post processing techniques now allow tissue characterisation images to be fused with 3D whole-heart images that accurately depict the coronary sinus anatomy in relation to areas of scar tissue using data from the same CMR scan.44 This technology has the potential to allow pre-emptive prediction of whether patients will benefit from CRT implantation based on their individual anatomy.

Figure 3: Kaplan–Meier Estimates of the Time to Combined Endpoint (Cardiovascular Death and Heart Failure Hospitalisation) in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Patients Related to the Presence and Thickness of Posterolateral (PL) scar

Open in new tab

Figure 4: Clinical Outcome of Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy According to Implantation Strategy

Open in new tab

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation

Reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF ≤35 %) remains the sole arbiter in international guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in heart failure patients.9,10 Paradoxically, 70–80 % of those who suffer sudden cardiac death (SCD) have an ejection fraction (EF) of >35 %45,46 and up to half of patients who currently receive an ICD never use it.47 The field has recently become even more controversial following the recent Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Non-ischemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality (DANISH), which included 1,116 participants.48 In this very well conducted study, patients with a NICM and EF <35 % were randomised to ICD or no ICD and followed up for a mean period of 68 months. There was no difference in the primary outcome of death from any cause, although there was a reduction in sudden death. There was no CMR in this study and critics have argued that this may have shed light on those patients who could benefit from ICD. This does more to highlight the inadequacies of EF as a gatekeeper to ICDs and has been the driving force behind efforts to identify novel biomarkers, including CMR indices that accurately identify patients at increased risk of SCD. As scar tissue is a focus for the development of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in both ICM49 and NICM50, its detection and quantification by LGE has been strongly associated with arrythmogenic events in patients who fall both within and, more interestingly, outside the current ICD implantation guidelines.51

Following the results of DANISH, a recent study including 253 individuals set out to determine whether CRT with a defibrillator is superior to CRT with a pacemaker in NICM patients with or without focal LV midwall fibrosis (MWF) detected by LGE.52 As expected, MWF conferred an adverse prognosis, with a 3.75-fold higher risk of SCD. Only patients with MWF gained a benefit from a defibrillator over a pacemaker in terms of outcome, suggesting that scar detection on CMR could be an invaluable tool in guiding appropriate device therapy.

Klem et al. performed CMR in 137 individuals (half with reduced EF, half preserved EF and split approximately half ICM versus NICM) prior to implantation of an ICD. They found that, in contrast to the gradual increase in adverse incidents that was observed with worsening LVEF, there was a sharp step-up in death or ICD discharge with even a small amount of scar tissue (>5 % of the LV mass; HR 5.2; CI 2.0–13.3; p=0.0006).53 Other studies have confirmed this finding of a threshold effect of scar burden conferring a strong adverse prognostic effect.54–59 Patients with preserved EF and scarring on CMR have a similar event rate to those with EF <30 %; while patients with EF <30 % but no scar have a similar event rate to those with preserved EF, see Figure 5. This observation eloquently demonstrates that an EF threshold used to arbitrate ICD prescription will inevitably lead to unused implants in many patients with low EF and overlooked arrhythmic deaths in many patients with preserved EF.

A more recent study including 399 participants with a median LVEF of 50 % followed up for a median of 54 months found a similar phenomenon in patients with NICM and preserved LV function. Midwall LGE was a significant independent predictor of SCD (HR 4.8; CI 1.7–13.8; p=0.003) and aborted SCD (HR 35.9; CI 4.8–271.4; p<0.001), independent of LVEF, see Figure 6.60

Scar heterogeneity has also been shown to have a significant influence on the development of ventricular arrhythmias. Border zone (BZ) scar, defined as areas with a LGE signal intensity of <50 % of the infarct core zone (CZ), is well known to confer a more significant risk of developing arrythmogenic endpoints than total scar burden alone.61–63 More recently Acosta et al. used 3D colour-coded LGE signal-intensity maps to accurately quantify total scar mass, CZ mass, BZ mass and BZ channel mass (defining a corridor of BZ connecting two areas of normal myocardium flowing between two CZs or between a CZ and a valve annulus) in 219 patients undergoing CRT implantation (defibrillator 71 %).64 Patients had a mean LVEF of 26 % and were followed up for a median of 36 months. Although all scar parameters correlated with a significantly increased risk of ICD therapy or SCD, BZ mass (HR 1.06; CI 1.04–1.08) and BZ channel mass (HR 1.2; CI 1.10–1.32) were the strongest predictors of these endpoints. Interestingly, regardless of aetiology, patients with scar tissue but without BZ channels did not receive any ICD therapy or experience SCD (100 % negative predictive value). LVEF was not identified as an independent predictor of the primary endpoint.

Figure 5: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Discharge and Sudden Cardiac Death Rates According to Ejection Fraction and Scar Burden

Open in new tab

It therefore seems that quantification and characterisation of scar tissue using LGE has a significant influence on adverse outcomes related to arrhythmias over and above that yielded from EF. This suggests that these scar parameters may be a better way to identify patients who would benefit from implantation of an ICD rather than the single parameter of EF. These fascinating observations have provided the impetus for eagerly anticipated randomised control trials such as Defibrillators To Reduce Risk by Magnetic ResoNance Imaging Evaluation (DETERMINE, NCT00487279) and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance GUIDEd Management of Mild-moderate Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (CMR-Guide, NCT01918215), which aim to establish whether ICD therapy improves the prognosis of patients with mild-to-moderate LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF >35–50 %) and LGE with ICM and NICM, respectively.

The LGE technique has provided new pathophysiological insights across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease and is probably the single most important development since CMR became a clinical tool in the last millennium. It has certainly been the driving force behind the huge expansion in the utilisation of the technique over the past 2 decades. However, LGE does have some important limitations. Despite LGE being highly accurate at identifying focal fibrosis, its reliance on relative signal intensity differences and the intentional nulling of “normal” myocardium means it cannot be utilised to identify diffuse myocardial fibrosis (DMF). A heart could be 50 % scar tissue, but if it is equally distributed throughout the myocardium the LGE technique would belie this fundamental pathology and the clinical report may simply read “no scar”. This problem also means that you cannot use the signal intensity from one scan as a comparator against another – either within the same patient over time or across different patients. In addition, one can only see the “tip of the iceberg”, as a threshold of fibrosis (perhaps as much as 15 %) needs to be crossed before it is detectable.65 Finally, within an area of “scarring” there are islands of intact myocytes and within areas of “normal” myocardium there may be microscopic pockets of fibrosis. These limitations, together with a lack of consensus regarding the optimal method for LGE quantification,66,67 have led to the development of T1 mapping sequences that have the potential to overcome many of these limitations.

Figure 6: Five-year Risk Estimates for Primary Sudden Cardiac Death and Aborted Sudden Cardiac Death Based on Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Alone and Midwall Late Gadolinium Enhancement Status in Addition to Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Open in new tab

T1 Mapping

Essentially, the method uses a robust imaging sequence to quantify the T1 time; the readout of this being a colour image. The colour of each pixel represents the T1 time in ms on a scale. The T1 of tissues is mostly influenced by their water and fat content. Fatty tissues have a very low T1 and are represented in one colour; tissues containing water, which is found in scars containing collagen for example, have a long T1 represented in another colour. The technique is so sensitive that it has been able to detect a difference between healthy males and healthy females of around 20 ms.68 This is a completely novel and largely unexplained phenomenon. With this sensitivity, images taken in one patient can be used to directly track disease progression/regression over time (provided that the disease trajectory affects the water/fat content of the myocardium in one direction or the other). T1 maps acquired before and after Gd enable us to non-invasively derive the extracellular volume (ECV) in a highly reproducible manner that has been well validated against histological analysis.69–71 Colour maps can be generated that display each pixel as the ECV expressed as a percentage (normal being approximately 20 %). In most diseases, elevations in ECV represent collagen/scar (and correspondingly DMF). T1-mapping techniques allow this to be seen within areas of infarction/non-ischaemic scar and also in remote/”normal” myocardium. In cardiac amyloid the ECV represents the protein burden in the tissue, and although this is an incredibly important parameter in prognostication72,73 it is beyond the scope of this article and is reviewed elsewhere.74 There are several excellent and very recent review articles that very eloquently describe the physics and the strengths of this new method as well as some of the ongoing controversies and difficulties it faces.75–78 T1-mapping techniques are still an area of avid research but we highlight here how they are already finding utility in diagnostics and prognostication with reference to heart failure.

Figure 7: Diagnostic Utility of Tissue Characterisation using Native T1 and Extracellular Volume Fraction (Based on MOLLI at 1.5T)

Open in new tab

Heart Failure Aetiology

The ability of T1-mapping techniques to determine DMF in vivo has greatly augmented the diagnostic capabilities of CMR and provided new insight into the pathophysiological processes that ultimately culminate in the development of heart failure in a wide range of diseases, see Figures 7 and 8.79,80 Automated post processing software packages81 and synthetic ECV calculation methods82 have swiftly transitioned these imaging sequences from theoretical research tools to standardised protocols used in some centres in everyday clinical practice. Some caution is advised in their routine application: the absolute values for native T1 depend greatly on field strength, pulse sequence, scanner manufacturer and the rules of measurement.83 Before clinical implementation, local reference ranges should be established.

Figure 8: Multiparametric Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Tissue Characterisation

Open in new tab

Adverse Outcomes

The past 5 years have seen a number of large studies investigating the prognostic role of T1 mapping in both all-comers referred for CMR, see Table 1, and in patients with heart failure, see Table 2.

Although the majority of this research (which includes over 6,000 patients and nearly 9,000 patient years of follow-up) is prospective in design, potentially leading to selection bias in the patient cohort, the fascinating and consistent finding is that T1 and ECV are independently associated with poor outcome in a dose-dependent fashion, independently of EF, focal scar burden (LGE) or aetiology.

Figure 9: Association of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Parameters with All-cause Mortality

Open in new tab

Figure 10: Association between Extracellular Volume and Clinical Outcome per Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Open in new tab

The ability to accurately quantify DMF using these techniques allows the relative risk of an adverse event to be estimated per unit change in these parameters. Schelbert et al. found that a 3 % rise in ECV in heart failure with preserved EF patients with both ICM and NICM (n=160, median LVEF of 62 % and mean follow-up of 1.9 years) correlated with a three-fold increase in risk of death or heart failure hospitalisation.84 Puntman et al., who followed 637 patients with a median LVEF of 47 % for an average of 1.8 years, found that a 10-ms increase in native T1 time is associated with a 10 % increased risk of the same endpoints in patients with NICM.85 Consider how tiny this difference is, as 10 ms is half the difference identified between healthy males and females. Yet this parameter is a more sensitive biomarker of adverse events than LVEF (HR 5.2 versus 3.1), see Figure 9.

Indeed, the prognostic predictive value of these methods, over and above LVEF – the current benchmark in heart failure ­– was elegantly demonstrated by Schelbert et al.86 The authors studied 1,172 individuals for a mean 1.7 years and found that ECV was significantly associated with an increased risk of heart failure hospitalisation and death in a univariate Cox regression model (p<0.05 for all) whether LVEF was reduced (<45 %) or preserved (>45 %), see Figure 10.86 The graph shows a dose–response relationship, hinting at an aetiological link between ECV expansion and adverse outcome.

The study by Wong et al.95 including 1,176 participants followed up for a median of 1.3 years found that ECV was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than in those without (30.2 % [interquartile range 26.9–32.7 %] versus 28.1 % [interquartile range 25.9–31.0 %], respectively; p≤0.001). This again highlights the technique’s exceptional sensitivity. Moreover, within the population, a 3 % rise in ECV correlated with a 52 % increased risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalisation (HR 1.52; 95 % CI 1.21–1.89).95

Table 1: T1 Mapping Studies in All-comers for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Extracellular Volume is used as the Parameter for All)

Open in new tab

Table 2: T1 Mapping Studies in Heart Failure Populations

Open in new tab

Response to Medical Therapy

Invasive myocardial tissue sampling has shown that DMF can be reversed by a number of first-line heart failure medications (lisinopril,96 perindopril,97 losartan98 and spironolactone99). Since T1 mapping is sensitive to these changes, it has the potential to be the first accurate non-invasive method of monitoring reduction in DMF as a response to medical therapy. If this is observed, it may help to explain why some patients with apparent severe heart failure go on to have a good prognosis and recovery of LV function. Indeed, an early study investigating the impact of treating post myocardial infarction patients with Omega-3 fatty acids (n=358) successfully used T1 mapping to accurately quantify and monitor DMF,100 highlighting this as a potentially viable method of establishing patients on optimal medical therapy based on their histological parameters.

One in 10 patients treated with anthracycline chemotherapy develop cardiotoxicity,101 which has been shown to have a significant prognostic implication.102 As early diagnosis and treatment of this complication with routine pharmaceutical therapy for heart failure reverses adverse remodelling and reduces subsequent cardiovascular adverse events,101,103 the identification of individuals who are at increased risk of this complication is of critical importance. A recent study104 identified patients previously treated with anthracycline chemotherapy as having significantly increased ECV compared with controls, suggesting that T1-mapping techniques may have a role to play as novel risk stratification biomarkers prior to and during treatment with anthracycline agents. Indeed, ongoing clinical trials in this area (NCT01719562) aim to provide the evidence required to increase access to CMR screening before chemotherapy, which has been identified as one of the major factors limiting its use as a diagnostic imaging tool in this cohort.105

Figure 11: Number of Deaths of Patients with Thalassaemia Major in the UK

Open in new tab

Response to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

The only study to date that has investigated the potential correlation between contrast-enhanced CMR-derived myocardial depressant factor and response to CRT showed that ECV calculated from a single region of interest in the septum of 48 patients (28 with ICM and 21 with NIDCM) correlated with response to biventricular pacing, but this effect did not hold up on multivariate analysis.106 As studies using multi-segmental analysis of the whole myocardium have identified that regional variation in ECV is significantly related to intra-ventricular dyssynchrony irrespective of EF,107 further clinical trials utilising whole-heart T1 maps to further explore this relationship are warranted.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantations

DMF has been shown to be pro-arrythmogenic due to its disruptive effect on electrical propagation between myocytes.108,109 DMF identification and quantification using T1 mapping therefore has potential as a risk biomarker for malignant arrhythmias and subsequent ICD implantation in heart failure patients.

One single-centre study followed-up 138 patients (71 with ICM and 59 with NICM) who underwent CMR prior to ICD implantation for a mean of 1.2 years. It was found that native T1 times were an independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapy and ventricular arrhythmias according to univariate (HR 1.06; CI 1.01–1.11; p=0.021 per 10 ms increase in T1 time) and multivariate (HR 1.10; CI 1.04–1.16; p=0.01 per 10 ms increase in T1 time) analysis.110 Further research in this area is clearly needed.

Table 3: Clinical Utility of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Techniques Ordered by Pathophysiological Mechanism and Tissue Characteristics

Open in new tab

T2 Techniques

T2-weighted imaging allows the visualisation of myocardial oedema due to the accumulation of water prolonging the T2 relaxation time; it enables the decay of transverse magnetisation to be measured. While “conventional” T2 sequences such as short tau inversion recovery (T2 STIR) can generate images that enable qualitative assessment of myocardial oedema in a variety of acute cardiomyopathies,111 T2-mapping techniques allow the extent of these inflammatory changes to be accuracy quantified in a similar way to T1 maps.112,113 Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence highlighting the diagnostic role of T2 mapping in acute cardiac conditions such as myocardial infarction,114 myocarditis,115,116 stress-induced (Takotsubo) cardiomyopathy117,118 and acute transplant rejection.119,120 However, to date no prognostic evidence derived from these techniques has been reported in the heart failure population and further research in this area of CMR is warranted.

T2-Star (T2*) is a relaxation parameter that inversely relates to the iron stores in any tissue and allows accurate, reproducible quantification of myocardial iron deposition.121,122 Since its introduction into clinical practice in 1999, this CMR technique has been successfully utilised as a screening tool in transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia patients to identify those with increased cardiac iron deposition. These patients are at significantly increased risk of cardiac complications such as heart failure and malignant arrhythmias.123 Early initiation of chelation therapy in these individuals has had an extraordinary impact on the long-term prognosis of this condition, with a 71 % reduction in the annual death rate from iron overload since 2000, see Figure 11.124 Interestingly, T1 mapping has potential in this field, since myocardial iron also shortens intrinsic T1 times. In early studies, T1 mapping appears to be more sensitive than T2 measurement,125,126 although its role in guiding therapy is yet to be established.

Conclusion

CMR is firmly established as the gold standard diagnostic imaging investigation in heart failure due to its unparalleled capability to accurately assess cardiac function and anatomy with excellent reproducibility and its novel ability to non-invasively identify specific aetiological processes, see Table 3.

There is a growing body of prognostic evidence using tissue characterisation techniques that suggests real potential as a viable risk-stratification biomarker and a precise means of tracking response to therapy. However, the techniques are continuing to evolve and undergo further refinement as summarised by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in their recently-published second consensus statement regarding CMR parametric mapping.78 We currently lack the wealth of data required for them to become routine clinical tools. We need a clearer understanding of the interrelation between native T1 and ECV. How do disease processes exert differential influence and what is the impact of that? The ongoing issue of variation in quantification methods must be solved using the standardisation of normalised reference ranges between vendors. Efforts are already underway to achieve this.127 With randomised trials, such as DETERMINE and CMR-GUIDE underway and a further 37 T1-mapping studies currently registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov, the evidence required to address these and other issues are in the pipeline. The reliance on EF as the sole arbiter for advanced therapies such as defibrillator implantation must end. As we move into the next decade, precision medicine, which is already finding application in several specialities, such as oncology, endocrinology and microbiology, will become more commonplace. CMR tissue characterisation techniques continue to mature and it seems likely they will play a leading role in the development of precision heart failure care. n

References
  1. Bleumink GS, Knetsch AM, Sturkenboom MC, et al. Quantifying the heart failure epidemic: prevalence, incidence rate, lifetime risk and prognosis of heart failure The Rotterdam Study. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1614–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. National Heart Failure Audit 2013–2014. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/nicor/audits/heartfailure/documents/annualreports/hfannual13–14–updated.pdf
  3. Abraham WT, Fonarow GC, Albert NM, et al. Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE–HF). J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:347–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Adams KF, Jr, Fonarow GC, Emerman CL, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in the United States: rationale, design, and preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J 2005;149:209–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Maggioni AP, Dahlstrom U, Filippatos G, et al. EURObservational Research Programme: the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC–HF Pilot). Eur J Heart Fail 2010;12:1076–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Nieminen MS, Brutsaert D, Dickstein K, et al. EuroHeart Failure Survey II (EHFS II): a survey on hospitalized acute heart failure patients: description of population. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2725–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Lucci D, et al. Nationwide survey on acute heart failure in cardiology ward services in Italy. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1207–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Heart Failure Guidelines [Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/conditions-and-diseases/cardiovascular-conditions/heart-failure (accessed 31 October 2017)
  9. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2129–200.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:e147–239.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Peterzan MA, Rider OJ, Anderson LJ. The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in heart failure. Card Fail Rev 2016;2:115–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, et al. Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function. Circulation 1999;100:1992–2002.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Schelbert EB, Hsu LY, Anderson SA, et al. Late gadolinium-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance identifies postinfarction myocardial fibrosis and the border zone at the near cellular level in ex vivo rat heart. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:743–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Flett AS, Westwood MA, Davies LC, et al. The prognostic implications of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:243–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Hombach V, Merkle N, Bernhard P, et al. Prognostic significance of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: Update 2010. Cardiol J 2010;17:549–57
    Crossref |PubMed
  16. Doltra A, Amundsen BH, Gebker R, et al. Emerging concepts for myocardial late gadolinium enhancement MRI. Curr Cardiol Rev 2013;9:185–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Kuruvilla S, Adenaw N, Katwal AB, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance predicts adverse cardiovascular outcomes in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:250–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Duan X, Li J, Zhang Q, et al. Prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement in dilated cardiomyopathy patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2015;70:999–1008.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Green JJ, Berger JS, Kramer CM, Salerno M. Prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement in clinical outcomes for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:370–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Ismail TF, Prasad SK, Pennell DJ. Prognostic importance of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance in cardiomyopathy. Heart 2012;98:438–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Fontana M, Pica S, Reant P, et al. Prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance in cardiac amyloidosis. Circulation 2015;132:1570–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Coleman GC, Shaw PW, Balfour PC, Jr, et al. Prognostic value of myocardial scarring on CMR in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:411–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Wu E, Judd RM, Vargas JD, et al. Visualisation of presence, location, and transmural extent of healed Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Lancet 2001;357:21–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Edelman RR, Hesselink J, Zlatkin MB, Crues JV. Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2006.
  25. Mahrholdt H, Wagner A, Judd RM, et al. Delayed enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1461–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. McCrohon JA, Moon JC, Prasad SK, et al. Differentiation of heart failure related to dilated cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease using gadolinium–enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation 2003;108:54–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Valle AC, Nadal M, Estornell M, et al. Prognostic implications of ischemic myocardial scar by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with normal coronary angiography and dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation 2008;118:S_839
  28. Satoh H, Sano M, Suwa K, et al. Distribution of late gadolinium enhancement in various types of cardiomyopathies: Significance in differential diagnosis, clinical features and prognosis. World J Cardiol 2014;6:585–601.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Grani C, Eichhorn C, Biere L, et al. Prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance tissue characterization in risk stratifying patients with suspected myocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1964–76.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Bello D, Shah DJ, Farah GM, et al. Gadolinium cardiovascular magnetic resonance predicts reversible myocardial dysfunction and remodeling in patients with heart failure undergoing beta-blocker therapy. Circulation 2003;108:1945–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Kida K, Yoneyama K, Kobayashi Y, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance images predicts reverse remodeling in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy treated with carvedilol. Int J Cardiol 2013;168:1588–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Leong DP, Chakrabarty A, Shipp N, et al. Effects of myocardial fibrosis and ventricular dyssynchrony on response to therapy in new-presentation idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: insights from cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2012;33:640–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Cazeau S, Leclercq C, Lavergne T, et al. Effects of multisite biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay. N Engl J Med 2001;344:873–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1845–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2140–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, et al. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1834–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1539–49.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Leclercq C, Kass DA. Retiming the failing heart: principles and current clinical status of cardiac resynchronization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:194–201.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. White JA, Yee R, Yuan X, et al. Delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with intraventricular dyssynchrony. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1953–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Ypenburg C, Roes SD, Bleeker GB, et al. Effect of total scar burden on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:657–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Daoulah A, Alsheikh-Ali AA, Al-Faifi SM, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with postero-lateral scar by cardiac magnetic resonance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Electrocardiol 2015;48:783–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Chalil S, Stegemann B, Muhyaldeen SA, et al. Effect of posterolateral left ventricular scar on mortality and morbidity following cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007;30:1201–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Leyva F, Foley PW, Chalil S, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by late gadolinium-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2011;13:29.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. White JA, Fine N, Gula LJ, et al. Fused whole-heart coronary and myocardial scar imaging using 3-T CMR. Implications for planning of cardiac resynchronization therapy and coronary revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:921–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Gorgels AP, Gijsbers C, de Vreede-Swagemakers J, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest – the relevance of heart failure. The Maastricht Circulatory Arrest Registry. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1204–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Stecker EC, Vickers C, Waltz J, et al. Population-based analysis of sudden cardiac death with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: two-year findings from the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1161–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Buxton AE, Waks JW, Shen C, Chen PS. Risk stratification for sudden cardiac death in North America – current perspectives. J Electrocardiol 2016;49:817–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Kober L, Thune JJ, Nielsen JC, et al. Defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1221–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. de Bakker JM, van Capelle FJ, Janse MJ, et al. Reentry as a cause of ventricular tachycardia in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease: electrophysiologic and anatomic correlation. Circulation 1988;77:589–606.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Soejima K, Stevenson WG, Sapp JL, et al. Endocardial and epicardial radiofrequency ablation of ventricular tachycardia associated with dilated cardiomyopathy: the importance of low–voltage scars. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1834–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Di Marco A, Anguera I, Schmitt M, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias or sudden death in dilated cardiomyopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2017;5:28–38.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Leyva F, Zegard A, Acquaye E, et al. Outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1216–27.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Klem I, Weinsaft JW, Bahnson TD, et al. Assessment of myocardial scarring improves risk stratification in patients evaluated for cardiac defibrillator implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:408–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Assomull RG, Prasad SK, Lyne J, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance, fibrosis, and prognosis in dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1977–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Lehrke S, Lossnitzer D, Schob M, et al. Use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance for risk stratification in chronic heart failure: prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement in patients with non–ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart 2011;97:727–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Gulati A, Jabbour A, Ismail TF, et al. Association of fibrosis with mortality and sudden cardiac death in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. JAMA 2013;309:896–908.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Rayatzadeh H, Tan A, Chan RH, et al. Scar heterogeneity on cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a predictor of appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Gao P, Yee R, Gula L, et al. Prediction of arrhythmic events in ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy patients referred for implantable cardiac defibrillator: evaluation of multiple scar quantification measures for late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:448–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Neilan TG, Coelho-Filho OR, Danik SB, et al. CMR quantification of myocardial scar provides additive prognostic information in nonischemic cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:944–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Halliday BP, Gulati A, Ali A, et al. Association between midwall late gadolinium enhancement and sudden cardiac death in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and mild and moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Circulation 2017;135:2106–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Schmidt A, Azevedo CF, Cheng A, et al. Infarct tissue heterogeneity by magnetic resonance imaging identifies enhanced cardiac arrhythmia susceptibility in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation 2007;115:2006–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Roes SD, Borleffs CJ, van der Geest RJ, et al. Infarct tissue heterogeneity assessed with contrast-enhanced MRI predicts spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:183–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Heidary S, Patel H, Chung J, et al. Quantitative tissue characterization of infarct core and border zone in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy by magnetic resonance is associated with future cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2762–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Acosta J, Fernández-Armenta JBorràs R, et al. Scar characterization to predict life-threatening arrhythmic events and sudden cardiac death in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: The GAUDI-CRT Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017. epub ahead of print.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Moon JC, Reed E, Sheppard MN, et al. The histologic basis of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:2260–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Flett AS, Hasleton J, Cook C, et al. Evaluation of techniques for the quantification of myocardial scar of differing etiology using cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:150–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Schulz-Menger J, Bluemke DA, Bremerich J, et al. Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) board of trustees task force on standardized post processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Piechnik SK, Ferreira VM, Lewandowski AJ, et al. Normal variation of magnetic resonance T1 relaxation times in the human population at 1.5 T using ShMOLLI. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Flett AS, Hayward MP, Ashworth MT, et al. Equilibrium contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the measurement of diffuse myocardial fibrosis: preliminary validation in humans. Circulation 2010;122:138–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Diao KY, Yang ZG, Xu HY, et al. Histologic validation of myocardial fibrosis measured by T1 mapping: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2016;18:92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Ide S, Riesenkampff E, Chiasson DA, et al. Histological validation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance T1 mapping markers of myocardial fibrosis in paediatric heart transplant recipients. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2017;19:10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Banypersad SM, Fontana M, Maestrini V, et al. T1 mapping and survival in systemic light-chain amyloidosis. Eur Heart J 2015;36:244–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Martinez-Naharro A, Treibel TA, Abdel-Gadir A, et al. Magnetic resonance in transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:466–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. Fontana M, Chung R, Hawkins PN, Moon JC. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for amyloidosis. Heart Fail Rev 2015;20:133–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  75. Piechnik SK, Jerosch-Herold M. Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: an overview of technical and biological confounders. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017. epub ahead of print
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. Radenkovic D, Weingartner S, Ricketts L, et al. T1 mapping in cardiac MRI. Heart Fail Rev 2017;22:415–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. Schelbert EB, Sabbah HN, Butler J, Gheorghiade M. Employing extracellular volume cardiovascular magnetic resonance measures of myocardial fibrosis to foster novel therapeutics. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:pii:e005619.
    Crossref | PubMed
  78. Messroghli DR, Moon JC, Ferreira VM, et al. Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: A consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2017;19:75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  79. Bulluck H, Maestrini V, Rosmini S, et al. Myocardial T1 mapping. Circ J 2015;79:487–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  80. Haaf P, Garg P, Messroghli DR, et al. Cardiac T1 Mapping and Extracellular Volume (ECV) in clinical practice: a comprehensive review. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2016;18:89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  81. Spottiswoode B, Ugander M, Kellman P. Automated inline extracellular volume (ECV) mapping. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015;17(Suppl 1):W6.
    Crossref
  82. Treibel TA, Fontana M, Maestrini V, et al. Automatic measurement of the myocardial interstitium: synthetic extracellular volume quantification without hematocrit sampling. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:54–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  83. Moon JC, Messroghli DR, Kellman P, et al. Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) and CMR Working Group of the European Society of Cardiology consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  84. Wong TC, Piehler K, Meier CG, et al. Association between extracellular matrix expansion quantified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and short-term mortality. Circulation 2012;126:1206–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  85. Ghassan Ghosn M, Pickett S, Brunner G, et al. Association of myocardial extracellular volume and clinical outcome: a cardiac magnetic resonance study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65(Issue 10S).
    Crossref
  86. Schelbert EB, Piehler KM, Zareba KM, et al. Myocardial fibrosis quantified by extracellular volume is associated with subsequent hospitalization for heart failure, death, or both across the spectrum of ejection fraction and heart failure stage. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4:pii:e002613.
    Crossref | PubMed
  87. Kammerlander AA, Marzluf BA, Zotter-Tufaro C, et al. T1 mapping by CMR imaging: from histological validation to clinical implication. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:14–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  88. Mascherbauer J, Marzluf BA, Tufaro C, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance postcontrast T1 time is associated with outcome in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:1056–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  89. Barison A, Del Torto A, Chiappino S, et al. Prognostic significance of myocardial extracellular volume fraction in nonischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2015;16:681–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  90. Duca F, Zotter-Tufaro C, Kammerlander AA, et al. Cardiac extracellular matrix is associated with adverse outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:502–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  91. Duca F, Kammerlander AA, Zotter-Tufaro C, et al. Interstitial fibrosis, functional status, and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights from a prospective cardiac magnetic resonance imaging study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:pii:e005277.
    Crossref | PubMed
  92. Puntmann VO, Carr-White G, Jabbour A, et al. T1-mapping and outcome in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: all-cause mortality and heart failure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:40–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  93. Youn JC, Hong YJ, Lee HJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced T1 mapping-based extracellular volume fraction independently predicts clinical outcome in patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: a prospective cohort study. Eur Radiol 2017;27:3924–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  94. Schelbert EB, Fridman Y, Wong TC, et al. Temporal relation between myocardial fibrosis and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: association with baseline disease severity and subsequent outcome. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2:95–1006.
    Crossref | PubMed
  95. Wong TC, Piehler KM, Kang IA, et al. Myocardial extracellular volume fraction quantified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance is increased in diabetes and associated with mortality and incident heart failure admission. Eur Heart J 2014;35:657–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  96. Brilla CG, Funck RC, Rupp H. Lisinopril-mediated regression of myocardial fibrosis in patients with hypertensive heart disease. Circulation 2000;102:1388–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  97. Schwartzkopff B, Brehm M, Mundhenke M, Strauer BE. Repair of coronary arterioles after treatment with perindopril in hypertensive heart disease. Hypertension 2000;36:220–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  98. Diez J, Querejeta R, Lopez B, et al. Losartan-dependent regression of myocardial fibrosis is associated with reduction of left ventricular chamber stiffness in hypertensive patients. Circulation 2002;105:2512–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  99. Izawa H, Murohara T, Nagata K, et al. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism ameliorates left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and myocardial fibrosis in mildly symptomatic patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: a pilot study. Circulation 2005;112:2940–5.
    PubMed
  100. Heydari B, Abdullah S, Pottala JV, et al. Effect of Omega-3 Acid Ethyl Esters on Left Ventricular Remodeling After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The OMEGA–REMODEL Randomized Clinical Trial. Circulation 2016;134:378–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  101. Cardinale D, Colombo A, Bacchiani G, et al. Early detection of anthracycline cardiotoxicity and improvement with heart failure therapy. Circulation 2015;131:1981–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  102. Felker GM, Thompson RE, Hare JM, et al. Underlying causes and long-term survival in patients with initially unexplained cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1077–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  103. Cardinale D, Colombo A, Lamantia G, et al. Anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy: clinical relevance and response to pharmacologic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:213–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  104. Jordan JH, Vasu S, Morgan TM, et al. Anthracycline-associated T1 mapping characteristics are elevated independent of the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities in cancer survivors. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:pii:e004325.
    Crossref | PubMed
  105. Zamorano JL, Lancellotti P, Rodriguez Munoz D, et al; Authors/Task Force Members; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. 2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: The Task Force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:2768–801.
    Crossref | PubMed
  106. Chen Z, Sohal M, Sammut E, et al. Focal but not diffuse myocardial fibrosis burden quantification using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging predicts left ventricular reverse modeling following cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016;27:203–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  107. Lin LY, Wu CK, Juang JM, et al. Myocardial regional interstitial fibrosis is associated with left intra-ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. Sci Rep 2016;6:20711.
    Crossref | PubMed
  108. Spach MS, Boineau JP. Microfibrosis produces electrical load variations due to loss of side-to-side cell connections: a major mechanism of structural heart disease arrhythmias. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997;20:397–413.
    Crossref |PubMed
  109. Massare J, Berry JM, Luo X, et al. Diminished cardiac fibrosis in heart failure is associated with altered ventricular arrhythmia phenotype. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2010;21:1031–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  110. Chen Z, Sohal M, Voigt T, et al. Myocardial tissue characterization by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using T1 mapping predicts ventricular arrhythmia in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:792–801.
    Crossref | PubMed
  111. Francone M, Carbone I, Agati L, et al. Utility of T2-weighted short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences in cardiac MRI: an overview of clinical applications in ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart disease. Radiol Med 2011;116:32–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  112. Huang TY, Liu YJ, Stemmer A, Poncelet BP. T2 measurement of the human myocardium using a T2-prepared transient-state TrueFISP sequence. Magn Reson Med 2007;57:960–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  113. Giri S, Chung YC, Merchant A, et al. T2 quantification for improved detection of myocardial edema. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2009;11:56.
    Crossref
  114. Verhaert D, Thavendiranathan P, Giri S, et al. Direct T2 quantification of myocardial edema in acute ischemic injury. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:269–78.
    Crossref | PubMed
  115. Bohnen S, Radunski UK, Lund GK, et al. Performance of t1 and t2 mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonance to detect active myocarditis in patients with recent-onset heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:pii:e003073.
    Crossref | PubMed
  116. Lurz P, Luecke C, Eitel I, et al. Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspected myocarditis: The MyoRacer-Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:1800–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  117. Vermes E, Pucheux L, Pucheux J, et al. T2-mapping and T1-mapping detect myocardial involvement in Tako-Tsubo cardiomyopathy: a preliminary experience. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2015;17(Suppl 1):P354.
    Crossref
  118. Thavendiranathan P, Walls M, Giri S, et al. Improved detection of myocardial involvement in acute inflammatory cardiomyopathies using T2 mapping. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:102–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  119. Butler CR, Savu A, Bakal JA, et al. Correlation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging findings and endomyocardial biopsy results in patients undergoing screening for heart transplant rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:643–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  120. Usman AA, Taimen K, Wasielewski M, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance T2 mapping in the monitoring and follow-up of acute cardiac transplant rejection: a pilot study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:782–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  121. Anderson LJ, Holden S, Davis B, et al. Cardiovascular T2-star (T2*) magnetic resonance for the early diagnosis of myocardial iron overload. Eur Heart J 2001;22:2171–9.
    Crossref |PubMed
  122. Carpenter JP, He T, Kirk P, et al. On T2* magnetic resonance and cardiac iron. Circulation 2011;123:1519–28.
    Crossref | PubMed
  123. Kirk P, Roughton M, Porter JB, et al. Cardiac T2* magnetic resonance for prediction of cardiac complications in thalassemia major. Circulation 2009;120:1961–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  124. Modell B, Khan M, Darlison M, et al. Improved survival of thalassaemia major in the UK and relation to T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2008;10:42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  125. Alam MH, Auger D, Smith GC, et al. T1 at 1.5T and 3T compared with conventional T2* at 1.5T for cardiac siderosis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2015;17:102.
    Crossref | PubMed
  126. Sado DM, Maestrini V, Piechnik SK, et al. Noncontrast myocardial T1 mapping using cardiovascular magnetic resonance for iron overload. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41:1505–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  127. Captur G, Gatehouse P, Keenan KE, et al. A medical device-grade T1 and ECV phantom for global T1 mapping quality assurance – the T1 Mapping and ECV Standardization in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (T1MES) program. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2016;18:58.
    Crossref | PubMed