Fijoy Vadakkumpadan1, Natalia Trayanova2, Katherine C Wu3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Institute for Computational Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: fijoy@jhu.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Institute for Computational Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the main criterion used in the current clinical practice to stratify sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk, has low sensitivity and specificity. OBJECTIVE: To uncover indices of left ventricular (LV) shape that differ between patients with a high risk of SCD and those with a low risk. METHODS: By using clinical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computational anatomy tools, a novel computational framework to compare 3-dimensional LV endocardial surface curvedness, wall thickness, and relative wall thickness between patient groups was implemented. The framework was applied to cardiac magnetic resonance data of 61 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who were selected for prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment on the basis of reduced LVEF. The patients were classified by outcome: group 0 had no events; group 1, arrhythmic events; and group 2, heart failure events. Segmental differences in LV shape were assessed. RESULTS: Global LV volumes and mass were similar among groups. Compared with patients with no events, patients in groups 1 and 2 had lower mean shape metrics in all coronary artery regions, with statistical significance in 9 comparisons, reflecting wall thinning and stretching/flattening. CONCLUSION: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and low LVEF, there exist quantifiable differences in 3-dimensional endocardial surface curvedness, LV wall thickness, and LV relative wall thickness between those with no clinical events and those with arrhythmic or heart failure outcomes, reflecting adverse LV remodeling. This retrospective study is a proof of concept to demonstrate that regional LV remodeling indices have the potential to improve the personalized risk assessment for SCD.
BACKGROUND: Low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the main criterion used in the current clinical practice to stratify sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk, has low sensitivity and specificity. OBJECTIVE: To uncover indices of left ventricular (LV) shape that differ between patients with a high risk of SCD and those with a low risk. METHODS: By using clinical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computational anatomy tools, a novel computational framework to compare 3-dimensional LV endocardial surface curvedness, wall thickness, and relative wall thickness between patient groups was implemented. The framework was applied to cardiac magnetic resonance data of 61 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who were selected for prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment on the basis of reduced LVEF. The patients were classified by outcome: group 0 had no events; group 1, arrhythmic events; and group 2, heart failure events. Segmental differences in LV shape were assessed. RESULTS: Global LV volumes and mass were similar among groups. Compared with patients with no events, patients in groups 1 and 2 had lower mean shape metrics in all coronary artery regions, with statistical significance in 9 comparisons, reflecting wall thinning and stretching/flattening. CONCLUSION: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and low LVEF, there exist quantifiable differences in 3-dimensional endocardial surface curvedness, LV wall thickness, and LV relative wall thickness between those with no clinical events and those with arrhythmic or heart failure outcomes, reflecting adverse LV remodeling. This retrospective study is a proof of concept to demonstrate that regional LV remodeling indices have the potential to improve the personalized risk assessment for SCD.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L Zhong; Y Su; L Gobeawan; S Sola; R-S Tan; J L Navia; D N Ghista; T Chua; J Guccione; G S Kassab Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Selwyn P Wong; John K French; Anna-Maria Lydon; Samuel O M Manda; Wanzhen Gao; Noel G Ashton; Harvey D White Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Mark J Cartoski; Plamen P Nikolov; Adityo Prakosa; Patrick M Boyle; Philip J Spevak; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Vesselina Ferferieva; Nicholas D'Elia; Brecht Heyde; Petr Otahal; Frank Rademakers; Jan D'hooge Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Yanhang Zhang; Victor H Barocas; Scott A Berceli; Colleen E Clancy; David M Eckmann; Marc Garbey; Ghassan S Kassab; Donna R Lochner; Andrew D McCulloch; Roger Tran-Son-Tay; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Diego Medvedofsky; Francesco Maffessanti; Lynn Weinert; David M Tehrani; Akhil Narang; Karima Addetia; Anuj Mediratta; Stephanie A Besser; Elad Maor; Amit R Patel; Kirk T Spencer; Victor Mor-Avi; Roberto M Lang Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11-15