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 (2020). Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques. ESC Heart Failure, 7(5), pp. 2637-2649. Wiley 10.1002/ehf2.12846

Preview

Text Assessment_Jung.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (4MB) | Preview

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

143 since deposited on 21 Jul 2020
14 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item