OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study the relation between onset and peak time of circumferential shortening and the direction of propagation of these parameters in both ischemic and nonischemic patients. BACKGROUND: Peak time is often used to select patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy, whereas pacing influences only the onset times directly. Furthermore, it is unclear whether there is a consistent direction of propagation delay and whether this depends on the etiology. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging myocardial tagging with high temporal resolution (14 ms) was applied to 29 patients (18 nonischemic, 11 ischemic) and 17 healthy control subjects. Time to onset (T(onset)), to first peak (T(peak,first)), and to maximum peak (T(peak,max)) of circumferential shortening were determined. Three-dimensional vectors were calculated to denote the main direction of asynchrony. RESULTS: In both patient groups, T(onset) showed a significant positive relation with both T(peak,first) and T(peak,max); however, T(peak,first) correlated considerably better with T(onset) than did T(peak,max) (p < 0.0001 for nonischemic, and p < 0.01 for ischemic patients). Moreover, the relations between T(peak) and T(onset) were stronger in the nonischemic patients than in the ischemic patients (p < 0.001). In nonischemic patients, the propagation of T(onset) was consistently from septum to lateral wall. In the ischemic patients, however, no consistent direction of propagation was found. For both groups, the longitudinal propagation delays (between apex and base) were negligible compared with the short-axis delays. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between peak time and onset time of shortening is strongest in nonischemic patients and is most consistent when time to first peak is used (instead of time to maximum peak).
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study the relation between onset and peak time of circumferential shortening and the direction of propagation of these parameters in both ischemic and nonischemic patients. BACKGROUND: Peak time is often used to select patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy, whereas pacing influences only the onset times directly. Furthermore, it is unclear whether there is a consistent direction of propagation delay and whether this depends on the etiology. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging myocardial tagging with high temporal resolution (14 ms) was applied to 29 patients (18 nonischemic, 11 ischemic) and 17 healthy control subjects. Time to onset (T(onset)), to first peak (T(peak,first)), and to maximum peak (T(peak,max)) of circumferential shortening were determined. Three-dimensional vectors were calculated to denote the main direction of asynchrony. RESULTS: In both patient groups, T(onset) showed a significant positive relation with both T(peak,first) and T(peak,max); however, T(peak,first) correlated considerably better with T(onset) than did T(peak,max) (p < 0.0001 for nonischemic, and p < 0.01 for ischemicpatients). Moreover, the relations between T(peak) and T(onset) were stronger in the nonischemic patients than in the ischemicpatients (p < 0.001). In nonischemic patients, the propagation of T(onset) was consistently from septum to lateral wall. In the ischemicpatients, however, no consistent direction of propagation was found. For both groups, the longitudinal propagation delays (between apex and base) were negligible compared with the short-axis delays. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between peak time and onset time of shortening is strongest in nonischemic patients and is most consistent when time to first peak is used (instead of time to maximum peak).
Authors: M J W Götte; I K Rüssel; G J de Roest; T Germans; R F Veldkamp; P Knaapen; C P Allaart; A C van Rossum Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Evgeny Pokushalov; Alexander Romanov; Giorgio Corbucci; Darya Prohorova; Alexander Chernyavsky; Petr Larionov; Igor Terekhov; Sergey Artyomenko; Elena Kliver; Natalya Shirokova; Alexander Karaskov; Nabil Dib Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Monda L Shehata; Susan Cheng; Nael F Osman; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Stefan A J Timmer; Tjeerd Germans; Marco J W Götte; Iris K Rüssel; Pieter A Dijkmans; Mark Lubberink; Jurrien M ten Berg; Folkert J ten Cate; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Paul Knaapen; Albert C van Rossum Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Magnus Edner; Yong Kim; Knud Norregaard Hansen; Henrik Nissen; Geert Espersen; Karl La Rosee; Fikru Maru; Nick Freemantle; John Cleland; Peter Sogaard Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2009-01-07 Impact factor: 2.062