Three-dimensional cardiac magnetic resonance allows the identification of slow-conducting anatomical isthmuses in tetralogy of Fallot.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot remain at risk of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia related to slow-conducting anatomical isthmuses (SCAIs). Preventive ablation of SCAI identified by invasive electroanatomical mapping is increasingly performed. This study aimed to non-invasively identify SCAI using 3D late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (3D-LGE-CMR). METHODS: Consecutive tetralogy of Fallot patients who underwent right ventricular electroanatomical mapping (RV-EAM) and 3D-LGE-CMR were included. High signal intensity threshold for abnormal myocardium was determined based on direct comparison of bipolar voltages and signal intensity by co-registration of RV-EAM with 3D-LGE-CMR. The diagnostic performance of 3D-LGE-CMR to non-invasively identify SCAI was determined, validated in a second cohort, and compared with the discriminative ability of proposed risk scores. RESULTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 48 (34 ± 16 years) and the validation cohort of 53 patients (36 ± 18 years). In the derivation cohort, 78 of 107 anatomical isthmuses (AIs) identified by EAM were normal-conducting AI, 22 were SCAI, and 7 blocked AI. High signal intensity threshold was 42% of the maximal signal intensity. The sensitivity and specificity of 3D-LGE-CMR for identifying SCAI or blocked AI were 100% and 90%, respectively. In the validation cohort, 85 of 124 AIs were normal-conducting AI, 36 were SCAI, and 3 blocked AI. The sensitivity and specificity of 3D-LGE-CMR were 95% and 91%, respectively. All risk scores showed an at best modest performance to identify SCAI (area under the curve ≤ .68). CONCLUSIONS: 3D late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance can identify SCAI with excellent accuracy and may refine non-invasive risk stratification and patient selection for invasive EAM in tetralogy of Fallot.

Contribution of MRI and imaging exams in the diagnosis of lumbar pseudarthrosis.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of pseudoarthrosis is based on imaging and clinical exam findings. The standard for pseudarthrosis diagnosis remains postoperative observation through computer tomography (CT) and patient's symptoms. This can be further augmented by dynamic X-ray imaging or nuclear positron emission tomography (PET) CT to demonstrate an absence of fusion by showing a persistence of mobility. However, there is not a uniform diagnostic approach that is a standard of care amongst spine practioners. The aim of this study is to describe the timeline and diagnostic analysis for pseudoarthrosis between the initial surgery and follow-up procedure. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective observational study. The aim was to enroll patients reoperated for pseudarthrosis after 1 or 2 level lumbar fusions, between August 1st, 2008 and August 1st, 2018. The exams were reviewed by one surgeon and one radiologist, defining a status either in favor of pseudarthrosis, or against it, or inconclusive, based on the radiological criteria mentioned below. We then investigated different combinations of exams and their specific chronology before a diagnosis was established. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included, 70.5% male and with a mean age of 47.3 years. The median time between the 2 surgeries was 23.7 months. Plain X-rays supported the diagnosis in 38.7% of cases, dynamic X-rays showed hypermobility in 50% of cases. The CT-scan demonstrated pseudarthrosis in 94,4% of cases. A MODIC 1 signal was observed in 87,2% of cases on MRI. SPECT-CT showed a tracer uptake in 70% of cases. CONCLUSION: Reducing the time to reintervention is a key objective for improving the management and clinical outcomes of these patients. We suggest that MRI is an additional tool in combination with CT in the assessment of suspected mechanical pseudarthrosis, in order to optimize the diagnosis and shorten the time to revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Local VA index for the differential diagnosis of supraventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating between atypical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia utilizing a septal accessory pathway is a complex challenge. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the "local VA index," a straightforward method based on signals from the coronary sinus catheter, to distinguish between these arrhythmias during tachycardia and entrainment. The ventriculoatrial (VA) interval on the coronary sinus catheter is measured during tachycardia and entrainment, at the site of earliest atrial activity. The difference between these 2 situations defines the "local VA index." We also propose a mechanism to clarify the limitations of historical pacing maneuvers, such as postpacing interval minus tachycardia cycle length (PPI-TCL) and stimulus-atrial interval minus ventriculoatrial interval (SA-VA), by examining nodal decrement and intraventricular conduction delay. METHODS: In a retrospective study of 75 patients referred for supraventricular tachycardia evaluation, 37 were diagnosed with atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) with orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia, and 38 with AVNRT (27 typical, 11 atypical). RESULTS: In comparison to AVRT patients, AVNRT patients exhibited longer PPI-TCL (176 ± 47 ms vs 113 ± 42 ms; P <.01) and SA-VA (138 ± 47 ms vs 64 ± 28 ms; P <.01). The AVRT group had mean local VA index of -1 ± 13 ms, whereas the AVNRT group had a significantly longer index of 91 ± 46 ms (P <.01). An optimal threshold for differentiation was a local VA index of 40 ms. Importantly, there was no significant correlation between pacing cycle length and nodal decrement as well as intraventricular delay related to pathway location. This interindividual variability might explain misleading interpretations of PPI-TCL and SA-VA. CONCLUSION: This novel approach is advantageous because of its simplicity and effectiveness, requiring only 2 diagnostic catheters. A local VA interval difference <40 ms provides a clear distinction for AVRT.