| Literature DB >> 25084814 |
Manav Sohal1,2,3, Simon G Duckett4, Xiahai Zhuang5, Wenzhe Shi6, Matthew Ginks7, Anoop Shetty8,9, Eva Sammut10, Sebastian Kozerke11, Steven Niederer12, Nic Smith13, Sebastien Ourselin14, Christopher Aldo Rinaldi15,16, Daniel Rueckert17, Gerald Carr-White18, Reza Razavi19.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with electrical dyssynchrony who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not obtain substantial benefit. Assessing mechanical dyssynchrony may improve patient selection. Results from studies using echocardiographic imaging to measure dyssynchrony have ultimately proved disappointing. We sought to evaluate cardiac motion in patients with heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). We developed a framework for comparing measures of myocardial mechanics and evaluated how well they predicted response to CRT.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25084814 PMCID: PMC4422256 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-014-0058-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Representative figure from the TomTec platform used to determine volume-change SDI.(A and B) The software requires endocardial contours to be outlined at end-diastole and end-systole in the 4-chamber, 3-chamber and 2-chamber (not shown). The software then produces a 3-dimensional shell of the endocardial cavity that tracks the endocardial contours throughout the cardiac cycle (C). Time-volume curves are then generated that represent the time to reach minimum volume for each of the 16 segments of the LV (D).
Figure 2Workflow of the CMR processing framework. Data from untagged and tagged MR images are combined and then subject to temporal and spatial correction before comprehensive motion tracking is computed.
Figure 3Differential weighting of the endocardial and epicardial regions and myocardial regions from tagged and untagged images. More weight is given to the untagged cine images when assessing endocardial and epicardial motion (blue arrows) whilst more weight is given to the tagged images when assessing myocardial motion (red arrows).
Characteristics of patients in phase 1 and phase 2
| 44 | 50 | ||
| 63.3 ± 14.1 | 68.6 ± 12.2 | 0.06 | |
| 40/4 | 35/15 | 0.01 | |
| 23 DCM | 31 DCM | 0.34 | |
| 21 ICM | 19 ICM | ||
| 24 (55) | 21 (42) | 0.22 | |
| 21.4 ± 7.9 | 24.4 ± 11.4 | 0.35 | |
| 154 ± 24 | 146 ± 21 | 0.11 | |
| 31/5/8 | 28/4/18 | 0.15 | |
| 38 SR | 42 SR | 0.53 | |
| 6 AF | 8 AF | ||
| 40 (91) | 38 (76) | 0.11 | |
| 43 (98) | 49 (98) | 0.84 | |
| 27 (62) | 35 (70) | 0.44 | |
| 17 (38) | 33 (66) | 0.27 | |
| 7 (16) | 12 (24) | 0.23 | |
| 35 (80) | 38 (76) | ||
| 2 (4) | 0 | ||
| 51 ± 24 | 50 ± 26 | 0.41 | |
| 255 ± 112 | 295 ± 149 | 0.02 | |
| 25 ± 9 | 22 ± 9 | 0.14 | |
| 232 ± 72 | 218 ± 90 | 0.43 | |
| 175 ± 67 | 172 ± 82 | 0.88 | |
| 0.86 | |||
| 20 | 21 | ||
| 21 | 22 | ||
| 3 | 5 | ||
| 3 | 2 | ||
| 4(9) | 7(14) | 0.46 |
*Volumes and ejection fraction derived from 2D echocardiography.
Abbreviations: CMR cardiovascular magnetic resonance, LBBB left bundle branch block, RBBB right bundle branch block, IVCD non-specific interventricular conduction delay, AF atrial fibrillation, ACEI angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, NYHA New York Heart Association, QOL quality of life.
Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of the CMR-derived predictors assessed using the novel framework
| 0.85 | 9.75% | 0.85 | 0.82 | |
| 0.75 | 15.8% | 0.65 | 0.79 | |
| 0.59 | 22.2% | 0.95 | 0.29 | |
| 0.59 | 20.7% | 0.83 | 0.40 | |
| 0.6 | 8.9% | 0.60 | 0.62 | |
| 0.58 | 5.6% | 0.80 | 0.46 |
Abbreviations: AUC area under the curve, SDI systolic dyssynchrony index.
The area under the curve (AUC) statistic, optimal cut-off values, sensitivities and specificities for each method to predict reverse remodeling (RR) is shown.
Figure 4Univariate forest plot comparing the CMR-derived dyssynchrony measures and echocardiography-derived measures as predictors of RR in phase 1. The red boxes indicate CMR-derived measures and the blue indicate echo-derived measures. Abbreviations: LVPE – left ventricular pre-ejection; IVMD – interventricular mechanical delay; S-L delay – septal to lateral wall delay; RT3DE volume SDI – volume SDI derived from real-time 3D echo.
Figure 5Volume-change and strain SDI curves from a healthy volunteer (A) and heart failure patient with LBBB and QRS duration of 200 ms (B). The volume change curves for the healthy volunteer are congruous indicating synchrony whilst the strain curves are not perfectly congruous. The volume change curves for the heart failure patient show clear dyssynchrony whereas the strain curves suggest synchrony.
Characteristics of responders vs non responders – Phase 2
| 35 | 15 | ||
| 23/12 | 12/3 | 0.31 | |
| 24 DCM | 7 DCM | 0.14 | |
| 11 ICM | 8 ICM | ||
| 149 ± 20 | 141 ± 23 | 0.27 | |
| 23/1/11 | 5/3/7 | 0.04 | |
| 12 (34) | 9 (60) | 0.11 | |
| 22.2 ± 13.0 | 29.4 ± 8.4 | 0.17 | |
| 15.2 ± 6.2 | 8.5 ± 4.5 | <0.001 | |
| 0.20 | |||
| 17 | 4 | ||
| 14 | 8 | ||
| 2 | 3 | ||
| 2 | 0 | ||
| 1(3) | 7(47) | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: As for Table 1.
Figure 6Forest plots of the utility of volume-change SDI to predict RR in phase 2 compared to the presence of scar, LBBB morphology and QRS duration. The panel on the left is the univariate model and the panel on the right is the multivariate model.