Advertisement

LGE-MRI Characterization of Left Atrial Fibrosis: a Tool to Establish Prognosis and Guide Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

  • Eva M. Benito
  • Francisco Alarcon
  • Lluís MontEmail author
Arrhythmias (J. Bunch, Section Editor)
  • 19 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Arrythmias

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent arrhythmia and also an important cause of morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is often the preferred therapy, but the incidence of recurrences is still significant. This review summarizes the contribution of atrial substrate identification using late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-MRI) to establish prognosis and to guide AF ablation.

Recent Findings

Left atrial (LA) fibrosis is thought to create the necessary substrate to sustain AF. The accuracy of LGE-MRI to identify areas of atrial fibrosis remains controversial. However, the amount of LA fibrosis visible in the 3D reconstruction of LGE-MRI has been identified as a sign for AF progression and poor outcome after ablation. Additionally, the scar created by radiofrequency and cryoablation lesions can be visualized after the procedures. Discontinuities in PVI ablation lines have been related to recurrence and can be used to identify electrical reconnections. Ongoing research is directed toward validating fibrosis ablation as a new target to improve ablation outcomes.

Summary

Atrial fibrosis assessment by LGE-MRI may show the severity of atrial disease and could be used to select patients likely to benefit the most from AF ablation. Usefulness of an individually tailored LGE-MRI-guided ablation approach is still under evaluation.

Keywords

Atrial fibrosis Atrial fibrillation Catheter ablation Late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance Substrate 

Abbreviations

AF

Atrial fibrillation

IIR

Image intensity ratio

LGE-MRI

Late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance

LA

Left atrium

PVI

Pulmonary vein isolation

SI

Signal intensity

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

L Mont is a shareholder of Galgo Medical Company. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Oakes RS, Badger TJ, Kholmovski EG, Akoum N, Burgon NS, Fish EN, et al. Detection and quantification of left atrial structural remodeling with delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2009;119(13):1758–67.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.811877.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Khurram IM, Beinart R, Zipunnikov V, Dewire J, Yarmohammadi H, Sasaki T, et al. Magnetic resonance image intensity ratio, a normalized measure to enable interpatient comparability of left atrial fibrosis. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(1):85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.10.007 This study reported a method to quantifiy LA fibrosis, based in a normalized measure: image intensity ratio(IIR) defined as LA myocardial signal intensity divided by the mean LA blood pool signal intensity. IIR showed goodo correlation with intracardiac voltage. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Benito EM, Carlosena-Remirez A, Guasch E, Prat-Gonzalez S, Perea RJ, Figueras R, et al. Left atrial fibrosis quantification by late gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance: a new method to standardize the thresholds for reproducibility. Europace. 2017;19(8):1272–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw219 This study aimed to obtain a comparable threshold between individuals of image intensity ratio (IIR) in order to detect LA fibrosis, based in a control group of young healthy volunteers. An IIR > 1.20 identified abnormal fibrotic tissue. IIR >1.32 was observed in dense scare of post-ablation patients. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mahnkopf C, Badger TJ, Burgon NS, Daccarett M, Haslam TS, Badger CT, et al. Evaluation of the left atrial substrate in patients with lone atrial fibrillation using delayed-enhanced MRI: implications for disease progression and response to catheter ablation. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7(10):1475–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.06.030.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGann C, Akoum N, Patel A, Kholmovski E, Revelo P, Damal K, et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation outcome is predicted by left atrial remodeling on MRI. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7(1):23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.000689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Marrouche NF, Wilber D, Hindricks G, Jais P, Akoum N, Marchlinski F, et al. Association of atrial tissue fibrosis identified by delayed enhancement MRI and atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: the DECAAF study. JAMA. 2014;311(5):498–506.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3 This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the relationship of left atrial fibrosis degree based in UTAH score detected by LGE-MRI with clinical outcomes. They reported that for an increment of 1% of left atrial fibrosis, the possibilities of recurrent arrhytmia increase in a 6%. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corradi D. Atrial fibrillation from the pathologist’s perspective. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2014;23(2):71–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpath.2013.12.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nattel S, Burstein B, Dobrev D. Atrial remodeling and atrial fibrillation: mechanisms and implications. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008;1(1):62–73.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.107.754564.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kottkamp H. Human atrial fibrillation substrate: towards a specific fibrotic atrial cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(35):2731–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burstein B, Nattel S. Atrial fibrosis: mechanisms and clinical relevance in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(8):802–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ambale-Venkatesh B, Lima JA. Cardiac MRI: a central prognostic tool in myocardial fibrosis. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12(1):18–29.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2014.159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bisbal F, Fernandez-Armenta J, Berruezo A, Mont L, Brugada J. Use of MRI to guide electrophysiology procedures. Heart. 2014;100(24):1975–84.  https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Pontecorboli G, Figueras IVRM, Carlosena A, Benito E, Prat-Gonzales S, Padeletti L, et al. Use of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging for fibrosis detection in the atria: a review. Europace. 2017;19(2):180–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw053 This article review summarizes and evaluate the current methodologies used to detect left atrial fibrosis by the different investigation groups. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akoum N, Daccarett M, McGann C, Segerson N, Vergara G, Kuppahally S, et al. Atrial fibrosis helps select the appropriate patient and strategy in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a DE-MRI guided approach. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2011;22(1):16–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2010.01876.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chrispin J, Ipek EG, Habibi M, Yang E, Spragg D, Marine JE, et al. Clinical predictors of cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement in patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2017;19(3):371–7.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Khurram IM, Habibi M, Gucuk Ipek E, Chrispin J, Yang E, Fukumoto K, et al. Left atrial LGE and arrhythmia recurrence following pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal and persistent AF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(2):142–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.10.015 This study compared LGE extension in the left atrium before AF ablation with clinical outcomes after the procedures. The cut-off proposed by this group that better correlated with poor outcomes was >35% of LA fibrosis. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Bisbal F, Guiu E, Cabanas-Grandio P, Berruezo A, Prat-Gonzalez S, Vidal B, et al. CMR-guided approach to localize and ablate gaps in repeat AF ablation procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(7):653–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.01.014 This was the first study to evaluated the feasability of a guided MRI ablation approach in redo procedures targeting the anatomical gaps detected by LGE-MRI compared with conventional approach. LGE-guided ablation led to reisolation of 95.6% of reconnected PVs. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • den Uijl DW, Cabanelas N, Benito EM, Figueras R, Alarcon F, Borras R, et al. Impact of left atrial volume, sphericity, and fibrosis on the outcome of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29(5):740–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.13482 This single centre study evaluates the atrial remodelling markers characterized by MRI (fibrosis, sphericity, LA volume) in relationship with clinical outcomes after AF ablation. The strongest predictor of AF recurrences in this study was LA volume. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Linhart M, Alarcon F, Borras R, Benito EM, Chipa F, Cozzari J, et al. Delayed gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging detected anatomic gap length in wide circumferential pulmonary vein ablation lesions is associated with recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018;11(12):e006659.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.118.006659 This study aims to characterize by LGE-MRI the induced RF lesions around the veins in order to localize the anatomical gaps for predicting outcomes after AF ablation. They report that the number of gaps was not correlated with recurrences but an increase of 10% relative gap length increased the likelihood of arrhytmia recurrence by 16%. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Harrison JL, Sohns C, Linton NW, Karim R, Williams SE, Rhode KS, et al. Repeat left atrial catheter ablation: cardiac magnetic resonance prediction of endocardial voltage and gaps in ablation lesion sets. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.114.002066 This study compares the site of electrical reconection in re-ablation procedures with LGE signal intensity around the veins in a MRI perfomed before the procedure. The authors founded a weak inverse correlation, and no significant differences signal intensity between electrical reconected and not reconected regions. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Harrison JL, Jensen HK, Peel SA, Chiribiri A, Grondal AK, Bloch LO, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance and electroanatomical mapping of acute and chronic atrial ablation injury: a histological validation study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(22):1486–95.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht560 This study aims to validate LGE signal intensities induced by the ablation lesions in pigs with an histopathological analysis of them. The SI thresholds that best approximated histological volumes were 2.3 SD above a reference for LGE post-ablation and 3.3 SD for LGE chronically. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peters DC, Wylie JV, Hauser TH, Kissinger KV, Botnar RM, Essebag V, et al. Detection of pulmonary vein and left atrial scar after catheter ablation with three-dimensional navigator-gated delayed enhancement MR imaging: initial experience. Radiology. 2007;243(3):690–5.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433060417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters DC, Wylie JV, Hauser TH, Nezafat R, Han Y, Woo JJ, et al. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation correlates with the extent of post-procedural late gadolinium enhancement: a pilot study. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2(3):308–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2008.10.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cochet H, Mouries A, Nivet H, Sacher F, Derval N, Denis A, et al. Age, atrial fibrillation, and structural heart disease are the main determinants of left atrial fibrosis detected by delayed-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in a general cardiology population. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26(5):484–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malcolme-Lawes LC, Juli C, Karim R, Bai W, Quest R, Lim PB, et al. Automated analysis of atrial late gadolinium enhancement imaging that correlates with endocardial voltage and clinical outcomes: a 2-center study. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(8):1184–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.04.030.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sramko M, Peichl P, Wichterle D, Tintera J, Weichet J, Maxian R, et al. Clinical value of assessment of left atrial late gadolinium enhancement in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiol. 2015;179:351–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.072.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hwang SH, Oh YW, Lee DI, Shim J, Park SW, Kim YH. Evaluation of quantification methods for left arial late gadolinium enhancement based on different references in patients with atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31(Suppl 1):91–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0563-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGann C, Kholmovski E, Blauer J, Vijayakumar S, Haslam T, Cates J, et al. Dark regions of no-reflow on late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging result in scar formation after atrial fibrillation ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(2):177–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.04.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hunter RJ, Jones DA, Boubertakh R, Malcolme-Lawes LC, Kanagaratnam P, Juli CF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection and characterization of left atrial catheter ablation lesions: a multicenter experience. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(4):396–403.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chrispin J, Gucuk Ipek E, Zahid S, Prakosa A, Habibi M, Spragg D, et al. Lack of regional association between atrial late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance and atrial fibrillation rotors. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(3):654–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.11.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karim R, Housden RJ, Balasubramaniam M, Chen Z, Perry D, Uddin A, et al. Evaluation of current algorithms for segmentation of scar tissue from late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance of the left atrium: an open-access grand challenge. J Cardiovas Magn Reson. 2013;15:105.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-15-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, Brugada J, Camm AJ, Chen SA, et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. Europace. 2012;14(4):528–606.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Verma A, Champagne J, Sapp J, Essebag V, Novak P, Skanes A, et al. Discerning the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic episodes of atrial fibrillation before and after catheter ablation (DISCERN AF): a prospective, multicenter study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(2):149–56.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verma A, Wazni OM, Marrouche NF, Martin DO, Kilicaslan F, Minor S, et al. Pre-existent left atrial scarring in patients undergoing pulmonary vein antrum isolation: an independent predictor of procedural failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(2):285–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berruezo A, Tamborero D, Mont L, Benito B, Tolosana JM, Sitges M, et al. Pre-procedural predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrence after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(7):836–41.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bisbal F, Alarcon F, Ferrero-de-Loma-Osorio A, Gonzalez-Ferrer JJ, Alonso C, Pachon M, et al. Left atrial geometry and outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation: results from the multicentre LAGO-AF study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19(9):1002–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jey060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bisbal F, Guiu E, Calvo N, Marin D, Berruezo A, Arbelo E, et al. Left atrial sphericity: a new method to assess atrial remodeling. Impact on the outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(7):752–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    • Akoum N, Morris A, Perry D, Cates J, Burgon N, Kholmovski E, et al. Substrate modification is a better predictor of catheter ablation success in atrial fibrillation than pulmonary vein isolation: an LGE-MRI study. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2015;9:25–31.  https://doi.org/10.4137/CMC.S22100 This study analized the impact of baseline fibrosis and the number of pulmonary veins completed encircled in LGE-MRI after AF ablation in outcomes. Baseline and residual fibrosis outside the veins were a better predictors of outcomes than completed enhancement around the veins. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    •• Efficacy of delayed enhancement MRI-guided ablation vs conventional catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (DECAAF II) [database on the Internet]. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT02529319. Accessed: august 20, 2015. This trial in an important multicenter randomized ongoing research about the clinical benefit of left atrial fibrosis areas isolation assessed by MRI in addition to PVI.
  40. 40.
    Isolation of pulmonary veins with the aid of magnetic resonance imaging (ALICIA) [database on the Internet]. Available from: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02698631. Accessed 4 March 2016.
  41. 41.
    Ouyang F, Antz M, Ernst S, Hachiya H, Mavrakis H, Deger FT, et al. Recovered pulmonary vein conduction as a dominant factor for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias after complete circular isolation of the pulmonary veins: lessons from double lasso technique. Circulation. 2005;111(2):127–35.  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000151289.73085.36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Calkins H, Reynolds MR, Spector P, Sondhi M, Xu Y, Martin A, et al. Treatment of atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs or radiofrequency ablation: two systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009;2(4):349–61.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.108.824789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nademanee K, McKenzie J, Kosar E, Schwab M, Sunsaneewitayakul B, Vasavakul T, et al. A new approach for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: mapping of the electrophysiologic substrate. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(11):2044–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.054.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Verma A. The techniques for catheter ablation of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2011;26(1):17–24.  https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0b013e3283413925.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Verma A, Jiang CY, Betts TR, Chen J, Deisenhofer I, Mantovan R, et al. Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1812–22.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1408288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boldt A, Wetzel U, Lauschke J, Weigl J, Gummert J, Hindricks G, et al. Fibrosis in left atrial tissue of patients with atrial fibrillation with and without underlying mitral valve disease. Heart. 2004;90(4):400–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kottkamp H, Berg J, Bender R, Rieger A, Schreiber D. Box isolation of fibrotic areas (BIFA): a patient-tailored substrate modification approach for ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27(1):22–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rolf S, Kircher S, Arya A, Eitel C, Sommer P, Richter S, et al. Tailored atrial substrate modification based on low-voltage areas in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7(5):825–33.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.001251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yang G, Yang B, Wei Y, Zhang F, Ju W, Chen H, et al. Catheter ablation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation using electrophysiologically guided substrate modification during sinus rhythm after pulmonary vein isolation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016;9(2):e003382.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.115.003382.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sanchez-Quintana D, Lopez-Minguez JR, Macias Y, Cabrera JA, Saremi F. Left atrial anatomy relevant to catheter ablation. Cardiol Res Pract. 2014;2014:289720–17.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/289720.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Benito EM, Andreu D, Mont L, Berruezo A. Correlation between functional electrical gaps identified by ultrahigh-density mapping and by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance in repeat atrial fibrillation procedure. HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2017;3(5):282–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrcr.2017.02.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva M. Benito
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Francisco Alarcon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lluís Mont
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Institut Clínic Cardiovascular, Hospital ClinicUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Cardiology DepartmentHospital ClinicBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.CIBERCVInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations