OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether cardiac magnetic resonance phase-contrast imaging (PC-CMR) can determine left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in comparison to echocardiography (EC). BACKGROUND: Non-invasive evaluation of diastolic function is important for the diagnostic classification and risk stratification of patients with cardiomyopathies. With EC, diastolic function is classified based on the mitral blood flow, LV myocardial tissue Doppler velocities and pulmonary venous flow. PC-CMR has the potential to measure these parameters and may be an important tool to assess diastolic function in clinical routine. METHODS: In 36 patients with various cardiovascular diseases and 6 healthy volunteers, we performed single-slice short-axis PC-CMR at the level of the mitral leaflet tip and the inflow of the pulmonary veins to generate EC-comparable mitral E and A waves, septal and lateral e' and a' tissue velocities, and E/A and E/e' ratios. EC was performed after PC-CMR in all patients and six volunteers. Patients were classified into three groups of DD for both techniques. In addition, we evaluated 120 healthy volunteers as controls (3 age groups: 1 = 20-35 years; 2 = 36-50 years; 3 ≥ 51 years) for reference values. RESULTS: PC-CMR correlation with EC regarding the relation of mitral E and A velocities was good (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). The correlation for the mean septal and lateral E/e' ratio was high with r = 0.90 (p < 0.001). 40/42 subjects (95 %) were categorized correctly. The mean scan time for PC-CMR was 189 ± 16 s and mean analysis time was 348 ± 95 s. EC image acquisition time was slightly higher (201 ± 37 s, p = n.s.), whereas EC image analysis time was significantly lower (149 ± 23 s, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The classification of DD with PC-CMR is feasible and shows good agreement with the widely accepted EC classification of DD. We present a practical approach for the clinically important assessment of DD with PC-CMR, circumventing sophisticated and time-consuming CMR sequences and specially designed software analysis tools.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether cardiac magnetic resonance phase-contrast imaging (PC-CMR) can determine left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in comparison to echocardiography (EC). BACKGROUND: Non-invasive evaluation of diastolic function is important for the diagnostic classification and risk stratification of patients with cardiomyopathies. With EC, diastolic function is classified based on the mitral blood flow, LV myocardial tissue Doppler velocities and pulmonary venous flow. PC-CMR has the potential to measure these parameters and may be an important tool to assess diastolic function in clinical routine. METHODS: In 36 patients with various cardiovascular diseases and 6 healthy volunteers, we performed single-slice short-axis PC-CMR at the level of the mitral leaflet tip and the inflow of the pulmonary veins to generate EC-comparable mitral E and A waves, septal and lateral e' and a' tissue velocities, and E/A and E/e' ratios. EC was performed after PC-CMR in all patients and six volunteers. Patients were classified into three groups of DD for both techniques. In addition, we evaluated 120 healthy volunteers as controls (3 age groups: 1 = 20-35 years; 2 = 36-50 years; 3 ≥ 51 years) for reference values. RESULTS: PC-CMR correlation with EC regarding the relation of mitral E and A velocities was good (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). The correlation for the mean septal and lateral E/e' ratio was high with r = 0.90 (p < 0.001). 40/42 subjects (95 %) were categorized correctly. The mean scan time for PC-CMR was 189 ± 16 s and mean analysis time was 348 ± 95 s. EC image acquisition time was slightly higher (201 ± 37 s, p = n.s.), whereas EC image analysis time was significantly lower (149 ± 23 s, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The classification of DD with PC-CMR is feasible and shows good agreement with the widely accepted EC classification of DD. We present a practical approach for the clinically important assessment of DD with PC-CMR, circumventing sophisticated and time-consuming CMR sequences and specially designed software analysis tools.
Authors: S R Ommen; R A Nishimura; C P Appleton; F A Miller; J K Oh; M M Redfield; A J Tajik Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-10-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: George R Sutherland; Giovanni Di Salvo; Piet Claus; Jan D'hooge; Bart Bijnens Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Sherif F Nagueh; Christopher P Appleton; Thierry C Gillebert; Paolo N Marino; Jae K Oh; Otto A Smiseth; Alan D Waggoner; Frank A Flachskampf; Patricia A Pellikka; Arturo Evangelista Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Sharon Ann Hunt; William T Abraham; Marshall H Chin; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Mariell Jessup; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Keith Michl; John A Oates; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christoph J Jensen; Holger C Eberle; Kai Nassenstein; Thomas Schlosser; Mani Farazandeh; Christoph K Naber; Georg V Sabin; Oliver Bruder Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Garvan C Kane; Barry L Karon; Douglas W Mahoney; Margaret M Redfield; Veronique L Roger; John C Burnett; Steven J Jacobsen; Richard J Rodeheffer Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas Meinertz; Anno Diegeler; Brigitte Stiller; Eckart Fleck; Markus K Heinemann; Achim A Schmaltz; Martin Vestweber; Kurt Bestehorn; Andreas Beckmann; Christian Hamm; Jochen Cremer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Thomas A Roberts; Anthony N Price; Laurence H Jackson; Valerie Taylor; Anna L David; Mark F Lythgoe; Daniel J Stuckey Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: David G Kiely; David Levin; Paul Hassoun; David D Ivy; Pei-Ni Jone; Jumaa Bwika; Steven M Kawut; Jim Lordan; Angela Lungu; Jeremy Mazurek; Shahin Moledina; Horst Olschewski; Andrew Peacock; Goverdhan Dutt Puri; Farbod Rahaghi; Michal Schafer; Mark Schiebler; Nicholas Screaton; Merryn Tawhai; Edwin Jr Van Beek; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf; Rebecca R Vanderpool; John Wort; Lan Zhao; Jim Wild; Jens Vogel-Claussen; Andrew J Swift Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Elisabeth H M Paiman; Huub J van Eyk; Minke M A van Aalst; Maurice B Bizino; Rob J van der Geest; Jos J M Westenberg; Petronella H Geelhoed-Duijvestijn; Aan V Kharagjitsingh; Patrick C N Rensen; Johannes W A Smit; Ingrid M Jazet; Hildo J Lamb Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 4.813