Cargando…
Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques
AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is still a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, and accurate non‐invasive diagnosis of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) remains difficult. The current study aimed at identifying the most informative cardiovascular magnetic resonan...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32686332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12846 |
_version_ | 1783588489770565632 |
---|---|
author | Kermer, Josephine Traber, Julius Utz, Wolfgang Hennig, Pierre Menza, Marius Jung, Bernd Greiser, Andreas Barckow, Philipp von Knobelsdorff‐Brenkenhoff, Florian Töpper, Agnieszka Blaszczyk, Edyta Schulz‐Menger, Jeanette |
author_facet | Kermer, Josephine Traber, Julius Utz, Wolfgang Hennig, Pierre Menza, Marius Jung, Bernd Greiser, Andreas Barckow, Philipp von Knobelsdorff‐Brenkenhoff, Florian Töpper, Agnieszka Blaszczyk, Edyta Schulz‐Menger, Jeanette |
author_sort | Kermer, Josephine |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is still a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, and accurate non‐invasive diagnosis of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) remains difficult. The current study aimed at identifying the most informative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters for the assessment of LVDD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively included 50 patients and classified them into three groups: with DD (DD+, n = 15), without (DD−, n = 26), and uncertain (DD±, n = 9). Diagnosis of DD was based on echocardiographic E/E′, invasive LV end‐diastolic pressure, and N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide. CMR was performed at 1.5 T to assess LV and left atrial (LA) morphology, LV diastolic strain rate (SR) by tissue tracking and tagging, myocardial peak velocities by tissue phase mapping, and transmitral inflow profile using phase contrast techniques. Statistics were performed only on definitive DD+ and DD− (total number 41). DD+ showed enlarged LA with LA end‐diastolic volume/height performing best to identify DD+ with a cut‐off value of ≥0.52 mL/cm (sensitivity = 0.71, specificity = 0.84, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.75). DD+ showed significantly reduced radial (inferolateral E peak: DD−: −14.5 ± 6.5%/s vs. DD+: −10.9 ± 5.9%/s, P = 0.04; anterolateral A peak: DD−: −4.2 ± 1.6%/s vs. DD+: −3.1 ± 1.4%/s, P = 0.04) and circumferential (inferolateral A peak: DD−: 3.8 ± 1.2%/s vs. DD+: 2.8 ± 0.8%/s, P = 0.007; anterolateral A peak: DD−: 3.5 ± 1.2%/s vs. DD+: 2.5 ± 0.8%/s, P = 0.048) SR in the basal lateral wall assessed by tissue tracking. In the same segments, DD+ showed lower peak myocardial velocity by tissue phase mapping (inferolateral radial peak: DD−: −3.6 ± 0.7 ms vs. DD+: −2.8 ± 1.0 ms, P = 0.017; anterolateral longitudinal peak: DD−: −5.0 ± 1.8 ms vs. DD+: −3.4 ± 1.4 ms, P = 0.006). Tagging revealed reduced global longitudinal SR in DD+ (DD−: 45.8 ± 12.0%/s vs. DD+: 34.8 ± 9.2%/s, P = 0.022). Global circumferential and radial SR by tissue tracking and tagging, LV morphology, and transmitral flow did not differ between DD+ and DD−. CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial size and regional quantitative myocardial deformation applying CMR identified best patients with DD. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7524101 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75241012020-10-02 Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques Kermer, Josephine Traber, Julius Utz, Wolfgang Hennig, Pierre Menza, Marius Jung, Bernd Greiser, Andreas Barckow, Philipp von Knobelsdorff‐Brenkenhoff, Florian Töpper, Agnieszka Blaszczyk, Edyta Schulz‐Menger, Jeanette ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is still a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, and accurate non‐invasive diagnosis of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) remains difficult. The current study aimed at identifying the most informative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters for the assessment of LVDD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively included 50 patients and classified them into three groups: with DD (DD+, n = 15), without (DD−, n = 26), and uncertain (DD±, n = 9). Diagnosis of DD was based on echocardiographic E/E′, invasive LV end‐diastolic pressure, and N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide. CMR was performed at 1.5 T to assess LV and left atrial (LA) morphology, LV diastolic strain rate (SR) by tissue tracking and tagging, myocardial peak velocities by tissue phase mapping, and transmitral inflow profile using phase contrast techniques. Statistics were performed only on definitive DD+ and DD− (total number 41). DD+ showed enlarged LA with LA end‐diastolic volume/height performing best to identify DD+ with a cut‐off value of ≥0.52 mL/cm (sensitivity = 0.71, specificity = 0.84, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.75). DD+ showed significantly reduced radial (inferolateral E peak: DD−: −14.5 ± 6.5%/s vs. DD+: −10.9 ± 5.9%/s, P = 0.04; anterolateral A peak: DD−: −4.2 ± 1.6%/s vs. DD+: −3.1 ± 1.4%/s, P = 0.04) and circumferential (inferolateral A peak: DD−: 3.8 ± 1.2%/s vs. DD+: 2.8 ± 0.8%/s, P = 0.007; anterolateral A peak: DD−: 3.5 ± 1.2%/s vs. DD+: 2.5 ± 0.8%/s, P = 0.048) SR in the basal lateral wall assessed by tissue tracking. In the same segments, DD+ showed lower peak myocardial velocity by tissue phase mapping (inferolateral radial peak: DD−: −3.6 ± 0.7 ms vs. DD+: −2.8 ± 1.0 ms, P = 0.017; anterolateral longitudinal peak: DD−: −5.0 ± 1.8 ms vs. DD+: −3.4 ± 1.4 ms, P = 0.006). Tagging revealed reduced global longitudinal SR in DD+ (DD−: 45.8 ± 12.0%/s vs. DD+: 34.8 ± 9.2%/s, P = 0.022). Global circumferential and radial SR by tissue tracking and tagging, LV morphology, and transmitral flow did not differ between DD+ and DD−. CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial size and regional quantitative myocardial deformation applying CMR identified best patients with DD. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7524101/ /pubmed/32686332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12846 Text en © 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Articles Kermer, Josephine Traber, Julius Utz, Wolfgang Hennig, Pierre Menza, Marius Jung, Bernd Greiser, Andreas Barckow, Philipp von Knobelsdorff‐Brenkenhoff, Florian Töpper, Agnieszka Blaszczyk, Edyta Schulz‐Menger, Jeanette Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
title | Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
title_full | Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
title_fullStr | Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
title_short | Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
title_sort | assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques |
topic | Original Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32686332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12846 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kermerjosephine assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT traberjulius assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT utzwolfgang assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT hennigpierre assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT menzamarius assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT jungbernd assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT greiserandreas assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT barckowphilipp assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT vonknobelsdorffbrenkenhoffflorian assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT topperagnieszka assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT blaszczykedyta assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques AT schulzmengerjeanette assessmentofdiastolicdysfunctioncomparisonofdifferentcardiovascularmagneticresonancetechniques |