The Extent of Late Gadolinium Enhancement Can Predict Adverse Cardiac Outcomes in Patients with Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Observational Study

Abstract

Objective The clinical course of an individual patient with heart failure is unpredictable with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) only. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived myocardial fibrosis extent and to determine the cutoff value for event-free survival in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) who had severely reduced LVEF. Materials and Methods Our prospective cohort study included 78 NICM patients with significantly reduced LV systolic function (LVEF < 35%). CMR images were analyzed for the presence and extent of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, heart transplantation, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator discharge for major arrhythmia, and hospitalization for congestive heart failure within 5 years after enrollment. Results A total of 80.8% (n = 63) of enrolled patients had LGE, with the median LVEF of 25.4% (19.8–32.4%). The extent of myocardial scarring was significantly higher in patients who experienced MACE than in those without any cardiac events (22.0 [5.5–46.1] %LV vs. 6.7 [0–17.1] %LV, respectively, p = 0.008). During follow-up, 51.4% of patients with LGE ≥ 12.0 %LV experienced MACE, along with 20.9% of those with LGE ≤ 12.0 %LV (log-rank p = 0.001). According to multivariate analysis, LGE extent more than 12.0 %LV was independently associated with MACE (adjusted hazard ratio, 6.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.54–17.74; p < 0.001). Conclusion In NICM patients with significantly reduced LV systolic function, the extent of LGE is a strong predictor for long-term adverse cardiac outcomes. Event-free survival was well discriminated with an LGE cutoff value of 12.0 %LV in these patients.

How to Clearly and Accurately Report Odds Ratio and Hazard Ratio in Diagnostic Research Studies?

“…When 28 original research studies reporting HR published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2020–2021 [ 11 15 32 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ] were evaluated against a rigorous standard, 96.4% (27/28) explicitly defined the events for HR, 48.1% (13/27) unmistakably described the reference category for HR calculation for categorical variables, and only 50% (10/20) clearly described the one-unit amount for HR for continuous variables. Therefore, further improvements are required.…”

Mistakes to Avoid for Accurate and Transparent Reporting of Survival Analysis in Imaging Research

“…This approach [29,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] may sound reasonable at a glance but is generally invalid. This analysis is logical only when the follow-up time is fixed and specified for the grouping of patients (e.g., patients developing events by 6 months after treatment vs. patients free of events until 6 months) and all patients have completely been followed until the specified time point (e.g., all have been followed until 6 months without dropouts unless they had events) [36][37][38]43]. Complete follow-up is difficult to achieve in clinical research, especially in retrospective studies or studies that involve long periods of follow-up.…”