Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 3, Issue 5, pp 371–381 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of antimyosin scintigraphy in suspected myocarditis

  • Jagat Narula
  • Ban An Khaw
  • G. William Dec
  • Igor F. Palacios
  • John B. Newell
  • James F. Southern
  • John T. Fallon
  • H. William Strauss
  • Edgar Haber
  • Tsunehiro Yasuda
Original Articles

Abstract

Background

Radiolabeled antibody specific for cardiac myosin administered intravenously has been used to define noninvasively regions of myocardial necrosis. Inflammatory heart disorders such as myocarditis and heart transplant rejection demonstrate diffuse and often faint myocardial uptake of antimyosin antibody. This study was undertaken to evaluate the reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of antimyosin antibody imaging for the detection of patients with suspected myocarditis.

Methods and Results

Fifty antimyosin scans, performed consecutively in patients with suspected myocarditis, were evaluated by one independent observer and two panels of observers. Antimyosin scan interpretations were compared with endomyocardial biopsy results and also with serial changes in left ventricular function. An independent observer (A) and a panel of five observers (A through E) interpreted the antimyosin scans as positive or negative on the basis of both planar images and tomographic reconstructions. Three of the five observers (A through C) again interpreted the scans but based interpretation only on planar images. Blinded random sequence evaluation of antimyosin scans based on the planar and tomographic interpretations revealed moderate agreement between the independent observer (A) and the group of observers (A through E) (κ=0.58). There was also moderate agreement between interpretations based on planar images alone and interpretations based on both planar and tomographic images (κ [A through E]/[A through C]=0.57; κ [A through C]/A=0.48). Comparison of antimyosin scan results with histologic evidence of myocarditis in endomyocardial biopsy specimens demonstrated that all scan results obtained from the individual or the panels of observers had a very high sensitivity (91% to 100%) and a high negative predictive value (93% to 100%). The specificity (31% to 44%) and positive predictive value (28% to 33%) were less impressive. We also compared the scan and biopsy results with the composite clinical standard of significant left ventricular functional improvement. Endomyocardial biopsy demonstrated poor sensitivity (35%) compared with antimyosin scans (82% to 94%) but had superior specificity (endomyocardial biopsy, 79%; antimyosin scan, 25% to 42%). The specificity of interpretations based on planar and tomographic interpretations (38% to 42%) was better than the planar images alone (25%). If reversible left ventricular dysfunction is considered clinical evidence of myocarditis, this study suggests that a negative endomyocardial biopsy significantly misses the presence of the disease. On the other hand, a negative antimyosin scan almost invariably excludes myocarditis.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates a high degree of interobserver reproducibility of antimyosin interpretation. Comparison of the scintigraphic results with histologic and clinical standards indicates a high sensitivity of antimyosin scans for the detection of myocarditis. The antimyosin scan is also not likely to miss clinically or pathologically diagnosed myocarditis, in contrast to the endomyocardial biopsy, which missed clinically validated myocarditis 65% of time. The combination of high sensitivity and negative predictive value suggests that antimyosin scintigraphy may be an effective screening procedure for obviating biopsies in patients with suspected myocarditis.

Key Words

dilated cardiomyopathy endomyocardial biopsy radionuclide imaging reproducibility myocarditis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guyatt G, Drummond M, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Stoddart G, Haynes RB, et al. Guidelines for the clinical and economic evaluation of health care technologies. Soc Sci Med 1986; 22:393–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sackett DL, Brian Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little Brown, 1985:59–155.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reddy KS. Interpretation of diagnostic tests. Natl Med J India 1990;3:161–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khaw BA, Gold KH, Yasuda T, Leinbach RC, Kanke M, Fallon JT, et al. Scintigraphic quantification of myocardial necrosis in patients after intravenous injection of myosin-specific antibody. Circulation 1986;74:501–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khaw BA, Yasuda T, Gold HK, Leinbach RC, John JA, Kanke M, et al. Acute myocardial infarct imaging with indium-111 labeled monoclonal antimyosin Fab fragments. J Nucl Med 1987;28:1671–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braat SH, de Zwaan C, Teule J, Heidendal G, Wellen HJJ. Value of indium-111 monoclonal antimyosin antibody for imaging in acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1987;60:725–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson LL, Seldin DW, Becker LC, LaFrance ND, Liberman HA, James C, et al. Antimyosin imaging in acute transmural myocardial infarction: results of a multicenter clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;13:27–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yasuda T, Palacios IF, Dec GW, Fallon JT, Gold HK, Leinbach RC, et al. Indium 111-monoclonal antimyosin antibody imaging in the diagnosis of acute myocarditis. Circulation 1987;76:306–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carrio I, Berna L, Ballester M, Estorch M, Obrador D, Cladellas M, et al. Indium-111-antimyosin scintigraphy to assess myocardial damage in patients with myocarditis and cardiac transplant rejection. J Nucl Med 1988;29:1893–900.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dec GW, Palacios IF, Yasuda T, Fallon JT, Khaw BA, Strauss HW, et al. Antimyosin antibody cardiac imaging: its role in diagnosis of myocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16:97–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Narula J, Khaw BA, Dec GW, Palacios JF, Southern JF, Fallon JT, et al. Recognition of acute myocarditis masquerading as acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;324:100–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lambert K, Issac D, Hendel R. Myocarditis masquerading as ischemic heart disease: the diagnostic utility of antimyosin imaging. Cardiology 1993;82:415–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dec GW, Palacios IF, Fallon JT, Aretz T, Mills J, Lee DC, et al. Active myocarditis in the spectrum of acute dilated cardiomyopathies: clinical features, histopathological correlates, and clinical outcome. N Engl J Med 1985;312:885–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mason JW, Billingham ME, Ricci DR. Treatment of acute inflammatory myocarditis assisted to endomyocardial biopsy. Am J Cardiol 1980;45:1037–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aretz HT, Billingham ME, Edwards WD, Factor SM, Fallon JT, Fenoglio JJ, et al. Myocarditis: a histopathological definition and classification. Am J Cardiovasc Pathol 1987;1:3–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dec GW, Fallon JT, Southern JF, Palacios IF. Borderline myocarditis: an indication for repeat endomyocardial biopsy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;15:283–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landis RJ, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kramer MS, Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics LIV: the biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;29:111–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lie JT. Myocarditis and endomyocardial biopsy in unexplained heart failure: a diagnosis in search of disease. Ann Intern Med 1988;109:525–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chow LH, Radio SJ, Sears TD, McManus BM. Insensitivity of right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy in the diagnosis of myocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:915–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hauck AJ, Kearney DL, Edwards WD. Evaluation of post-mortem endomyocardial biopsy specimens from 38 patients with lymphocytic myocarditis: implications for role of sampling error. Mayo Clinic Proc 1989;64:1235–45.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Narula J, Southern JF, Dec GW, Palacios JF, Newell JB, Fallon JT, et al. Antimyosin uptake, myofibrillarlysis, and dilated cardiomyopathy. J Nucl Cardiol 1995;2:470–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    James T. Apoptosis in normal and abnormal heart. Circulation 1994;90:556–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Detre KM, Wright E, Murphy ML, Takaro T. Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation 1975;52:979–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feinstein AR, Gelfman NA, Yesner R. Observer variability in the histopathologic diagnosis of lung cancer. Am Rev Respir Dis 1970;101:671–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cochrane AL, Chapman PJ, Oldham PD. Observers’ errors in taking medical histories. Lancet 1951;i:1007–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smyllie HD, Blendis LM, Armitage P. Observer disagreement in physical signs of the respiratory system. Lancet 1965;ii:412–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Birkelo CC, Chamberlain WE, Phelps PS, Schools PE, Zacks D, Yerushalmy J. Tuberculosis case finding: a comparison of the effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. JAMA 1947;133:359–66.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore RE, Gilbert JP, Harthrone JW. Interobserver variability in coronary angiography Circulation 1976;53:627–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beauman GJ, Vogel RA. Accuracy of individual and panel visual interpretations of coronary arteriograms: implications for clinical decisions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16:108–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atwood JE, Jensen D, Froelicher V, et al. Agreement in human interpretation of analog thallium myocardial perfusion images. Circulation 1981;64:601–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mason JW, Myers RW, Goris ML, Doherty P, Alderman EL, Kriss JP. Reliability and reproducibility of interpretation of 99m-technetium pyrophosphate myocardial scintigrams. Clin Cardiol 1979; 2:440–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carter WD, Brady TM, Keyes JW, Thrall JH, Greenhouse JB, Biello DR, et al. Relative accuracy of two diagnostic schemes for detection of pulmonary emboli by ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy. Radiology 1982;145:447–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gjorup T, Brahm M, Munck O, Jensen AM. Interobserver variation in the detection of metastases on liver scans. Gastroenterology 1986;90:166–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jarlov AE, Gjorup T, Hegedus L, Jacobsen KH, Marving J, Hansen JM. Observer variation in the scintigraphic diagnosis of solitary cold thyroid lesions. Clin Endocrinol 1990;33:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shanes JG, Ghali J, Billingham ME, Ferrans VJ, Fenoglio JJ, Edwards WD, et al. Interobserver variability in the pathologic interpretation of endomyocardial biopsy results. Circulation 1987; 75:401–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jagat Narula
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ban An Khaw
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • G. William Dec
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Igor F. Palacios
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • John B. Newell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • James F. Southern
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • John T. Fallon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • H. William Strauss
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Edgar Haber
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tsunehiro Yasuda
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Cardiac Unit and Division of Nuclear Medicine, Tilton 2Massachusetts General HospitalBoston
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolBoston
  3. 3.Harvard School of Public HealthBoston
  4. 4.Northeastern UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations