| Literature DB >> 25160568 |
Tevfik F Ismail, Li-Yueh Hsu, Anders M Greve, Carla Gonçalves, Andrew Jabbour, Ankur Gulati, Benjamin Hewins, Niraj Mistry, Ricardo Wage, Michael Roughton, Pedro F Ferreira, Peter Gatehouse, David Firmin, Rory O'Hanlon, Dudley J Pennell, Sanjay K Prasad, Andrew E Arai.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microvascular dysfunction in HCM has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Advances in quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging now allow myocardial blood flow to be quantified at the pixel level. We applied these techniques to investigate the spectrum of microvascular dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and to explore its relationship with fibrosis and wall thickness.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25160568 PMCID: PMC4145339 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-014-0049-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Summary of the steps involved in pixel-wise perfusion quantification and analysis.
Baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of the study cohort stratified according to the presence/absence of severe microvascular dysfunction
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age – years (IQR) | 58.9 (52.3, 67.5) | 52.0 (42.5, 63.6) | 57.1 (48.5, 66.6) | 0.256 |
| Male sex – n (%) | 18 (75.0) | 7 (63.6) | 25 (71.4) | 0.490 |
| Apical phenotype – n (%) | 4 (16.7) | 2 (18.2) | 6 (17.1) | 0.912 |
| Risk factors for SCD | | | | |
| Sustained VT/VF – n (%) | 0 (0) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (2.9) | 0.134 |
| Family history of SCD – n (%) | 2 (8.3) | 1 (9.1) | 3 (8.6) | 0.941 |
| Wall thickness ≥30 mm – n (%) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (9.1) | 2 (5.7) | 0.560 |
| Resting LVOT obstruction ≥30 mmHg – n (%) | 1 (4.2) | 3 (27.3) | 4 (11.4) | 0.046 |
| Non-sustained VT – n (%) | 3 (12.5) | 0 (0) | 3 (8.6) | 0.220 |
| Unexplained syncope – n (%) | 3 (12.5) | 1 (9.1) | 4 (11.4) | 0.769 |
| Number of risk factors for SCD – n (%) | | | | |
| 0 | 14 (58.3) | 5 (45.5) | 19 (54.3) | 0.296 |
| 1 | 10 (41.7) | 5 (45.5) | 15 (42.9) | |
| 2+ | 0 (0.0) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (2.9) | |
| NYHA functional class – n (%) | | | | |
| I | 16 (66.7) | 8 (72.7) | 24 (68.6) | 0.720 |
| II | 8 (33.3) | 3 (27.3) | 11 (31.4) | |
| III | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| IV | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Medications at baseline – n (%) | | | | |
| β-blocker | 14 (58.3) | 6 (54.6) | 20 (57.1) | 0.833 |
| Ca2+-channel blocker | 0 (0) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (2.9) | 0.134 |
QR = Interquartile Range; SCD = Sudden Cardiac Death; VT = Ventricular Tachycardia; VF = Ventricular Fibrillation; LVOT = Left Ventricular Outflow Tract; NYHA = New York Heart Association.
Figure 2Examples of results of pixel-wise quantitative first-pass cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging (ml/g/min) for (A) severe microvascular dysfunction and (B) non-severe patients. Stress images are shown on the top row and rest images on the bottom row for identical basal, mid-ventricular and apical slices together with their corresponding pixel maps.
Baseline cardiovascular magnetic resonance findings for the study cohort stratified according to the presence/absence of severe microvascular dysfunction
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum end-diastolic wall thickness – mm | 18.9 ± 4.5 | 22.2 ± 4.0 | 19.9 ± 4.6 | 0.048 |
| LV-EDV index – ml/m2 | 68.5 ± 15.1 | 64.3 ± 10.5 | 67.2 ± 13.8 | 0.419 |
| LV-ESV index – ml/m2 | 19.5 ± 7.9 | 17.2 ± 6.1 | 18.8 ± 7.4 | 0.393 |
| LV ejection fraction – % | 72.0 ± 8.3 | 73.8 ± 6.5 | 72.5 ± 7.7 | 0.515 |
| LV mass index – g/m2 | 93.6 ± 24.9 | 103.4 ± 30.0 | 96.7 ± 26.6 | 0.318 |
All values mean ± SD. CMR = Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; LV = Left Ventricular; EDV = End-diastolic volume; ESV = End-systolic volume.
Figure 3Mean myocardial blood flow (MBF) at rest and stress for hypoperfused and remote regions of myocardium for the (A) severe microvascular dysfunction and (B) non-severe patients.
Figure 4Myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) in the severe and non-severe microvascular dysfunction groups for the most-hyperemic transmural segments, sub-epicardial, and sub-endocardial sub-sectors.
Figure 5Mean myocardial blood flow (MBF) in (A) segments and (B) regions of interest (ROI) with and without late gadolinium enhancement (LGE).