Incremental Utility of First-Pass Perfusion CMR for Prognostic Risk Stratification of Cancer-Associated Cardiac Masses.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) differentiates cardiac metastasis (CMET) and cardiac thrombus (CTHR) based on tissue characteristics stemming from vascularity on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Perfusion CMR can assess magnitude of vascularity; utility for cardiac masses (CMASS) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if perfusion CMR provides diagnostic and prognostic utility for CMASS beyond binary differentiation of CMET and CTHR. METHODS: The population comprised adult cancer patients with CMASS on CMR; CMET and CTHR were defined using LGE-CMR: CMASS+ patients were matched to CMASS- control subjects for cancer type/stage. First-pass perfusion CMR was interpreted visually and semiquantitatively for CMASS vascularity, including contrast enhancement ratio (CER) (plateau vs baseline) and contrast uptake rate (CUR) (slope). Follow-up was performed for all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 462 cancer patients were studied, including patients with (CMET = 173, CTHR = 69) and without CMASS on LGE-CMR. On perfusion CMR, CER and CUR were higher within CMET vs CTHR (P < 0.001); CUR yielded better performance (AUC: 0.89-0.93) than CER (AUC: 0.66-0.72) (both P < 0.001) to differentiate LGE-CMR-evidenced CMET and CTHR, although both CUR (P = 0.10) and CER (P = 0.01) typically misclassified CMET with minimal enhancement. During follow-up, mortality among CMET patients was high but variable; 47% of patients were alive 1 year post-CMR. Patients with semiquantitative perfusion CMR-evidenced CMET had higher mortality than control subjects (HR: 1.42 [95% CI: 1.06-1.90]; P = 0.02), paralleling visual perfusion CMR (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.12-1.94]; P = 0.006) and LGE-CMR (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.16-2.00]; P = 0.003). Among patients with CMET on LGE-CMR, mortality was highest among patients (P = 0.002) with lesions in the bottom perfusion (CER) tertile, corresponding to low vascularity. Among CMET and cancer-matched control subjects, mortality was equivalent (P = NS) among patients with lesions in the upper CER tertile (corresponding to higher lesion vascularity). Conversely, patients with CMET in the middle (P = 0.03) and lowest (lowest vascularity) (P = 0.001) CER tertiles had increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion CMR yields prognostic utility that complements LGE-CMR: Among cancer patients with LGE-CMR defined CMET, mortality increases in proportion to magnitude of lesion hypoperfusion.

Prevalence and Predictors of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Critically Ill Medical Patients Who Underwent Diagnostic Duplex Ultrasonography.

INTRODUCTION: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a recognized but preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). We examined the prevalence and risk factors for DVT in MICU patients who underwent diagnostic venous duplex ultrasonography (DUS) and the potential effect on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study examining prevalence of DVT in 678 consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary care level academic MICU from July 2014 to 2015. Patients who underwent diagnostic DUS were included. Potential conditions of interest were mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, sepsis, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, central venous catheters, prior DVT, and malignancy. Primary outcomes were pulmonary embolism, ICU length of stay, and mortality. Additionally, means of thromboprophylaxis was compared between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was utilized to determine predictors of DVT occurrence. RESULTS: Of the 678 patients, 243 (36%) patients underwent DUS to evaluate for DVT. The prevalence of DVT was 16% (38) among tested patients, and a prior history of DVT was associated with DVT prevalence (P < .01). Between cases and controls, there were no significant differences in central venous catheters, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, sepsis, SOFA scores, malignancy, and recent surgery. Patients receiving chemical prophylaxis had fewer DVTs compared to persons with no prophylaxis (14% vs 29%; P = .01) and persons with dual chemical and mechanical prophylaxis (P = 0.1). Fourteen percent of patients tested had documented DVT while on chemoprophylaxis. There were no significant differences in ICU length of stay (P = .35) or mortality (P = .34). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the appropriate use of universal thromboprophylaxis, critically ill nonsurgical patients still demonstrated high rates of DVT. A history of DVT was the sole predictor for development of proximal DVT on DUS testing. Dual chemical and mechanical prophylaxis does not appear to be superior to single-chemical prophylaxis in DVT prevention in this population.