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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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