Background: Post-sepsis cardiomyopathy is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. It remains poorly understood, which limits therapeutic development. This study characterised post-sepsis cardiomyopathy using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Methods: Patients admitted with acute sepsis and suspected cardiac injury or heart failure who subsequently (47 days [IQR: 22–122]) underwent CMR at a UK tertiary cardiac centre were included. Age- and gender-matched controls (n = 16) were also included. Subjects underwent CMR at 1.5 Tesla with cines, native T1- and T2-mapping, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging. Results: Of the 22 post-sepsis patients (age 50 ± 13 years; 64% males), 13 patients (59%) had left ventricular (LV) dilatation. Patients had significantly elevated left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices compared to controls (p = 0.011 and p = 0.013, respectively). Eleven patients (50%) had LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < 50%), most of whom (8/11) had non-ischaemic patterns of LGE (n = 7 mid-wall; n = 1 mid-wall/patchy). In the eleven patients with preserved LV systolic function (ejection fraction ≥ 50%), three patients (27%) had significant LGE (n = 1 mid-wall; n = 1 subepicardial/mid-wall; n = 1 patchy). Compared to controls, patients had elevated septal native myocardial T1 values (p < 0.001) but similar septal native myocardial T2 values (p = 0.090), suggesting the presence of myocardial fibrosis without significant oedema. Conclusions: Post-sepsis cardiomyopathy is characterised by LV dilatation, systolic dysfunction, and myocardial fibrosis in a non-ischaemic distribution. Significant myocardial oedema is not prominent several weeks post-recovery. Further work is needed to test these findings on a multi-centre basis and to develop novel therapies for post-sepsis cardiomyopathy.

Background: Differentiating between immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) myocarditis and non-ICI myocarditis is clinically important. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a well-established method for diagnosing acute myocarditis. The value of CMR for distinguishing ICI myocarditis from non-ICI myocarditis remains unclear, which this study sought to determine. Methods: A total of 54 patients (n = 26 ICI myocarditis; n = 28 non-ICI myocarditis) underwent clinical CMR for the assessment of cardiac function (cines), myocardial fibrosis (native T1-mapping, extracellular volume [ECV] fraction, late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) and myocardial oedema (native T2-mapping). Results: ICI myocarditis patients were older than non-ICI myocarditis patients (75 years [71–78] vs. 39 years [30–64]; p < 0.001). Both groups had similar left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (58 ± 11% vs. 58 ± 6%; p = 0.970). ICI myocarditis and non-ICI myocarditis patients also had similar native myocardial T1 values (1041 ± 84 ms vs. 1063 ± 60 ms; p = 0.281), native myocardial T2 values (59 ± 6 ms vs. 59 ± 6 ms; p = 0.943) and ECV (0.32 ± 0.07 vs. 0.31 ± 0.04; p = 0.403). Native myocardial T1 values (Rho = −0.553) and ECV (Rho = −0.502) were significantly associated with LVEF in non-ICI myocarditis patients (both p < 0.05). There was no significant association between myocardial T1 values, T2 values or ECV, with LVEF, in ICI myocarditis patients (all p < 0.05). Non-ICI myocarditis patients had a greater frequency of LGE in the LV compared to ICI myocarditis patients (89% vs. 52% p = 0.005). However, the pattern of LGE was similar between the two patient groups (mostly subepicardial and/or mid-wall). Conclusions: In this single centre retrospective cohort, the findings suggest that quantitative parametric mapping methods by CMR may not differentiate between ICI vs. non-ICI myocarditis. Further work is needed to assess the value of CMR for diagnosing standalone ICI myocarditis.

Background/Objectives: Survivors of sepsis can develop left ventricular (LV) systolic function with focal myocardial fibrosis. The relationship between diffuse myocardial fibrosis or oedema and LV systolic function remains unknown in this patient cohort. This study sought to address this knowledge gap using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) parametric mapping methods. Methods: Sepsis survivors who underwent CMR at a UK cardiac centre were included. CMR images analysed include cines, native T1-mapping, native T2-mapping, and post-contrast T1-mapping. Synthetic extracellular volume (ECV) fraction was also estimated. Native myocardial T1 values, native myocardial T2 values, and ECV values were compared against LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Results: Of the 37 sepsis survivors (age 53 ± 16 years old; 57% males), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55% (IQR 43–62), and 43% of the patients had LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 50%). Mean native myocardial T1 values were 1055 ± 65 ms (septal) and 1051 ± 60 ms (global). Mean synthetic ECV values were 0.30 ± 0.04. Mean native myocardial T2 values were 52 ± 7 ms (septal) and 53 ± 6 ms (global). Septal and global native myocardial T1 values were not significantly correlated with LVEF (rho = 0.080, p = 0.637; rho = 0.036, p = 0.831, respectively). Synthetic ECV was not significantly correlated to LVEF (rho = −0.082; p = 0.723). Septal and global native myocardial T2 values were weakly correlated with LVEF (rho = 0.261, p = 0.281; rho = 0.216, p = 0.375, respectively). On ROC analysis, the performance of native myocardial T1 values, ECV, and native myocardial T2 values for predicting LV dysfunction was modest (AUC: 0.53 ± 0.10, 0.54 ± 11, and 0.68 ± 0.14; all p > 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: CMR markers of diffuse myocardial fibrosis (native T1-mapping and ECV) and myocardial oedema (native T2-mapping) have weak relationships with left ventricular systolic function in this study cohort of sepsis survivors. Further work is needed to better assess the role of diffuse myocardial fibrosis and oedema in the pathophysiology of post-sepsis cardiomyopathy.