Kardiyak Manyetik Rezonans Görüntülemede İnsidental Ekstrakardiyak Bulguların Yaygınlığı ve Klinik Önemi

Öz

Amaç: Kardiyak Magnetik rezonans görüntülemede (MRG) tespit edilen insidental ekstrakardiyak bulguların (EKB) yaygınlığını ve olası sonuçlarını tartışmak ve ayrıca bu bulguların yaşla ilişkilerini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kardiyak MRG çekilen 812 hastanın MRG’leri retrospektif iki radyolog tarafindan değerlendirildi. EKB’lar hafif veya klinik önemsiz (grup 1), potansiyel önemli (grup 2) ve klinik olarak önemli (grup 3) olmak üzere üç grupta incelendi. Ayrıca hasta grubu 65 yaş üstü ve altı olarak 2 gruba ayrılarak ekstrakardiyak bulguların yaygınlığı değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmamız 812 kişiden oluşmakta olup 432 erkek (%52,96), medyan yaş 54 yıl (aralık 19-76 yıl), 176 hastada toplam 187 EKB tespit ettik. Bu EKB'larden; 74'ü (%9,1) hafif veya hiç klinik öneme sahip değildi, 70'i (%8,6) potansiyel önemli ve 32'si (%3,9) klinik olarak önemliydi. 507 (%62,4) kişi ≤65 yaşında ve 305 (%37,6) kişi 65 yaş üstündeydi. EKB'lar 65 yaş üstü hastalarda anlamlı derecede daha sık görüldü (n=100, %56,8 p<0,001). Sonuç: Kardiyak MRI bulguları raporlanırken, 65 yaş üstü hastalarda ekstrakardiyak bulgulara özellikle dikkat edilmeli ve klinik olarak anlamlı bulgular raporlanmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• insidental bulgular
• ekstrakardiyak bulgular
• kardiyak görüntüleme
• manyetik rezonans görüntüleme
• radyoloji

Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental Extracardiac Findings on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Öz

Aim: The purpose of this study is to discuss the prevalence and potential outcomes of incidental extracardiac findings (IEF) identified on cardiac MRI and also explore the age implications of these findings. Materials and Methods: 812 MRIs cardiac MRI were evaluated retrospectively by two radiologists. IEFs were examined in three groups as mild or no clinical significance (group 1), probable clinical significance (group 2) and clinically significant (group 3). In addition, the patient group was divided into 2 groups as over and under 65 years of age and the prevalence of extracardiac involvement was evaluated. Result: Our study consisted of 812 individuals (432 males (52.96%), median age 54 years, range 19-76 years), we identified a total of 187 IEFs in 176 patients. Of these IEFs; 74 (9.1%) belonged to group 1 were of mild or no clinical significance, 70 (8.6%) belonged to group 2 were of probable clinical significance, and 32 (3.9%) belonged to group 3 were clinically significant. 507 (62.4%) were ≤65 years old and 305 (37.6%) were over 65 years old. IEFs were seen significantly more frequently in patients over 65 years of age (n=100, 56.8% p<0.001). Conclusion: When reporting cardiac MRI findings, particular attention should be paid to extracardiac findings in patients over 65 years of age, and clinically significant findings should be reported.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• incidental findings
• extracardiac findings
• cardiac imaging
• magnetic resonance imaging
• radiology

Destekleyen Kurum

None

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for this study wasobtained from the local ethics committee of (approval no. AESH-EK1-2023-823).

Kaynakça

1. 1.Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Flamm SD, Kim RJ, Nagel E. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocols: 2020 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 ;24;22(1):17
2. 2. Atalay MK, Prince EA, Pearson CA, Chang KJ. The prevalence and clinical significance of noncardiac findings on cardiacMRI. . AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):W387-93.
3. 3. Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I. Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(988):276-89.
4. 4. Gravina M, Stoppino LP, Casavecchia G, Moffa AP, Vinci R, Brunetti ND, et al. Incidental Extracardiac Findings and Their Characterization on Cardiac MRI. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2423546.
5. 5. Ufuk F, Yavas HG, Sagtas E, Kilic ID. The prevalence and clinical significance of incidental non-cardiac findings on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and unreported rates of these findings in official radiology reports. Pol J Radiol. 2022;87:e207-e214.
6. 6. Sade LE, Hazirolan T, Kozan H, Ozdemir H, Hayran M, Eroglu S, et al. T1 Mapping by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Multidimensional Speckle-Tracking Strain by Echocardiography for the Detection of Acute Cellular Rejection in Cardiac Allograft Recipients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(8 Pt 2):1601-14.
7. 7. Haaf P, Garg P, Messroghli DR, Broadbent DA, Greenwood JP, Plein S. Cardiac T1 Mapping and Extracellular Volume (ECV) in clinical practice: a comprehensive review. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18(1):89.
8. 8. Dunet V, Schwitter J, Meuli R, Beigelman-Aubry C. Incidental extracardiac findings on cardiac MR: Systematic review and metaanalysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(4):929-39.

9. 9. Sokolowski FC, Karius P, Rodriguez A, Lembcke A, Wagner M, Hamm B, et al. Extracardiac findings at cardiac MR imaging: a single-centre retrospective study over 14 years. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(10):4102-10.
10. 10. Mantini C, Mastrodicasa D, Bianco F, Bucciarelli V, Scarano M, Mannetta G, et al. Prevalence and Clinical Relevance of Extracardiac Findings in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Thorac Imaging. 2019;34(1):48-55.
11. 11. Rahman H, Shawky A, Mehana E. Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental Extracardiac Findings during Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: a Retrospective Study. Hong Kong J Radiol. 2023;26:34-41