Long-term prognostic value of vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Although the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) is high among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), studies on stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging frequently exclude patients with AF, and its prognostic and diagnostic value in high-risk patients with suspected or known CAD remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this longitudinal cohort study, we included 164 consecutive patients with AF during vasodilator perfusion CMR. Diagnostic value was evaluated regarding invasive coronary angiography in a subset of patients. We targeted a follow-up of >5 years and used CMR results as stratification, and the primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events [MACE, cardiovascular (CV) death and myocardial infarction (MI)]. Secondary outcomes included late coronary revascularization or stroke and the components of the primary outcome. Of the whole cohort (73.8% male, mean age 72.2 years ± 7.8 SD), 99.4% were successfully scanned (163/164 patients). Median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 [interquartile range (IQR) 3-5], and median 10-year risk for CV events based on SMART risk score was high (24%, IQR 16-32%). Thirty-two patients (19.6%) presented with ischaemia and 52 patients (31.9%) with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). A combination of LGE and inducible ischaemia was present in 20 patients (12.3%). Diagnostic accuracy was 86.2% [confidence interval (CI) 68.3-96.1%]. The median follow-up was 6.6 years (IQR 3.6-7.8). Ischaemia in vasodilator perfusion CMR was significantly associated with the occurrence of MACE [P < 0.01; hazard ratio (HR) 2.65, CI 1.39-5.08], as well as LGE (P = 0.03; 1.74, CI 1.07-3.64) and the combination of both (P < 0.01; HR 2.67, CI 1.59-5.62). After adjustment by age, left ventricular ejection fraction, and the presence of diabetes, ischaemia in vasodilator perfusion CMR remained significantly associated with the occurrence of MACE (2.10, CI 1.08-4.10; P = 0.03). In secondary endpoint analysis, there was a significant association of ischaemia in CMR with CV death (P < 0.05; HR 1.93, CI 0.95-3.9) and MI (P < 0.01; HR 13, CI 1.35-125.4), while no significant association was found regarding the occurrence of revascularization (P = 0.45; HR 1.43, CI 0.57-3.58) or stroke (P = 0.99; HR 0.99, CI 0.21-2.59). CONCLUSIONS: Vasodilator stress perfusion CMR demonstrated an excellent diagnostic and significant prognostic value at long-term follow-up in high-risk patients with persistent AF and suspected or known CAD.

CMR findings after COVID-19 and after COVID-19-vaccination-same but different?

Cardiac involvement has been described in varying proportions of patients recovered from COVID-19 and proposed as a potential cause of prolonged symptoms, often described as post-COVID or long COVID syndrome. Recently, cardiac complications have been reported from COVID-19 vaccines as well. We aimed to compare CMR-findings in patients with clinical cardiac symptoms after COVID-19 and after vaccination. From May 2020 to May 2021, we included 104 patients with suspected cardiac involvement after COVID-19 who received a clinically indicated cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examination at a high-volume center. The mean time from first positive PCR to CMR was 112 ± 76 days. During their COVID-19 disease, 21% of patients required hospitalization, 17% supplemental oxygen and 7% mechanical ventilation. In 34 (32.7%) of patients, CMR provided a clinically relevant diagnosis: Isolated pericarditis in 10 (9.6%), %), acute myocarditis (both LLC) in 7 (6.7%), possible myocarditis (one LLC) in 5 (4.8%), ischemia in 4 (3.8%), recent infarction in 2 (1.9%), old infarction in 4 (3.8%), dilated cardiomyopathy in 3 (2.9%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 2 (1.9%), aortic stenosis, pleural tumor and mitral valve prolapse each in 1 (1.0%). Between May 2021 and August 2021, we examined an additional 27 patients with suspected cardiac disease after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, CMR provided at least one diagnosis in 22 (81.5%): Isolated pericarditis in 4 (14.8%), acute myocarditis in 9 (33.3%), possible myocarditis (acute or subsided) in 6 (22.2%), ischemia in 3 (37.5% out of 8 patients with stress test), isolated pericardial effusion (> 10 mm) and non-compaction-cardiomyopathy each in 1 (3.7%). The number of myocarditis diagnoses after COVID-19 was highly dependent on the stringency of the myocarditis criteria applied. When including only cases of matching edema and LGE and excluding findings in the right ventricular insertion site, the number of cases dropped from 7 to 2 while the number of cases after COVID-19 vaccination remained unchanged at 9. While myocarditis is an overall rare side effect after COVID-19 vaccination, it is currently the leading cause of myocarditis in our institution due to the large number of vaccinations applied over the last months. Contrary to myocarditis after vaccination, LGE and edema in myocarditis after COVID-19 often did not match or were confined to the RV-insertion site. Whether these cases truly represent myocarditis or a different pathological entity is to be determined in further studies.