OBJECTIVES: Left-ventricular mass (LVM) is widely used to guide clinical decision-making. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) quantifies LVM by planimetry of contiguous short-axis images, an approach dependent on reader-selection of images to be contoured. Established methods have applied different binary cut-offs using circumferential extent of left-ventricular myocardium to define the basal left ventricle (LV), omitting images containing lesser fractions of left-ventricular myocardium. This study tested impact of basal slice variability on LVM quantification. METHODS: CMR was performed in patients and laboratory animals. LVM was quantified with full inclusion of left-ventricular myocardium, and by established methods that use different cut-offs to define the left-ventricular basal-most slice: 50% circumferential myocardium at end diastole alone (ED50), 50% circumferential myocardium throughout both end diastole and end systole (EDS50). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients and 10 lab animals were studied. Among patients, fully inclusive LVM (172.6±42.3g) was higher vs. ED50 (167.2±41.8g) and EDS50 (150.6±41.1g; both P<0.001). Methodological differences yielded discrepancies regarding proportion of patients meeting established criteria for left-ventricular hypertrophy and chamber dilation (P<0.05). Fully inclusive LVM yielded smaller differences with echocardiography (Δ=11.0±28.8g) than did ED50 (Δ=16.4±29.1g) and EDS50 (Δ=33.2±28.7g; both P<0.001). Among lab animals, ex-vivo left-ventricular weight (69.8±13.2g) was similar to LVM calculated using fully inclusive (70.1±13.5g, P=0.67) and ED50 (69.4±13.9g; P=0.70) methods, whereas EDS50 differed significantly (67.9±14.9g; P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Established CMR methods that discordantly define the basal-most LV produce significant differences in calculated LVM. Fully inclusive quantification, rather than binary cut-offs that omit basal left-ventricular myocardium, yields smallest CMR discrepancy with echocardiography-measured LVM and non-significant differences with necropsy-measured left-ventricular weight.
OBJECTIVES: Left-ventricular mass (LVM) is widely used to guide clinical decision-making. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) quantifies LVM by planimetry of contiguous short-axis images, an approach dependent on reader-selection of images to be contoured. Established methods have applied different binary cut-offs using circumferential extent of left-ventricular myocardium to define the basal left ventricle (LV), omitting images containing lesser fractions of left-ventricular myocardium. This study tested impact of basal slice variability on LVM quantification. METHODS: CMR was performed in patients and laboratory animals. LVM was quantified with full inclusion of left-ventricular myocardium, and by established methods that use different cut-offs to define the left-ventricular basal-most slice: 50% circumferential myocardium at end diastole alone (ED50), 50% circumferential myocardium throughout both end diastole and end systole (EDS50). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients and 10 lab animals were studied. Among patients, fully inclusive LVM (172.6±42.3g) was higher vs. ED50 (167.2±41.8g) and EDS50 (150.6±41.1g; both P<0.001). Methodological differences yielded discrepancies regarding proportion of patients meeting established criteria for left-ventricular hypertrophy and chamber dilation (P<0.05). Fully inclusive LVM yielded smaller differences with echocardiography (Δ=11.0±28.8g) than did ED50 (Δ=16.4±29.1g) and EDS50 (Δ=33.2±28.7g; both P<0.001). Among lab animals, ex-vivo left-ventricular weight (69.8±13.2g) was similar to LVM calculated using fully inclusive (70.1±13.5g, P=0.67) and ED50 (69.4±13.9g; P=0.70) methods, whereas EDS50 differed significantly (67.9±14.9g; P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Established CMR methods that discordantly define the basal-most LV produce significant differences in calculated LVM. Fully inclusive quantification, rather than binary cut-offs that omit basal left-ventricular myocardium, yields smallest CMR discrepancy with echocardiography-measured LVM and non-significant differences with necropsy-measured left-ventricular weight.
Authors: G A Stewart; J Foster; M Cowan; E Rooney; T McDonagh; H J Dargie; R S Rodger; A G Jardine Journal: Kidney Int Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Kim Rajappan; Nicholas G Bellenger; Giovanni Melina; Marco Di Terlizzi; Magdi H Yacoub; Desmond J Sheridan; Dudley J Pennell Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: T N Bloomer; S Plein; A Radjenovic; D M Higgins; T R Jones; J P Ridgway; M U Sivananthan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Noel C F Codella; Hae Yeoun Lee; David S Fieno; Debbie W Chen; Sandra Hurtado-Rua; Minisha Kochar; John Paul Finn; Robert Judd; Parag Goyal; Jesse Schenendorf; Matthew D Cham; Richard B Devereux; Martin Prince; Yi Wang; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: David S Fieno; Wyatt C Jaffe; Orlando P Simonetti; Robert M Judd; J Paul Finn Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Frank Grothues; Gillian C Smith; James C C Moon; Nicholas G Bellenger; Peter Collins; Helmut U Klein; Dudley J Pennell Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Neil K Mehta; Jiwon Kim; Jonathan Y Siden; Sara Rodriguez-Diego; Javid Alakbarli; Antonino Di Franco; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Sören J Backhaus; Wieland Staab; Michael Steinmetz; Christian O Ritter; Joachim Lotz; Gerd Hasenfuß; Andreas Schuster; Johannes T Kowallick Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Charlotte Burup Kristensen; Stefan Michael Sattler; Anniek Frederike Lubberding; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Thomas Jespersen; Christian Hassager; Rasmus Mogelvang Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-05-03