| Literature DB >> 25242199 |
Vincent Wu, Janice Y Chyou, Sohae Chung, Sharath Bhagavatula, Leon Axel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of mitral annulus (MA) dynamics is an important component of the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function; MA velocities are commonly measured using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI). This study aimed to examine the clinical potential of a semi-automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique for quantifying global LV diastolic function, using 3D volume tracking of the MA with conventional cine-CMR images.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25242199 PMCID: PMC4169226 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-014-0071-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Semi-automated AVJ tracking in cine-CMR. (A) User selects initial atrioventricluar junction (AVJ) point (highlighted in red) in cardiac phase 1 of long-axis cine-CMR series. (B) A template (red square) centered on the AVJ point in phase 1 undergoes normalized cross-correlation (NCC) with a larger region of interest (ROI) (yellow square) in phase 2. Calculation of NCC produces a correlation coefficient map, in which the maximum-intensity pixel location corresponds to new AVJ location in phase 2. (C) The new AVJ location is used as the template for the next iteration, and this process is repeated for all remaining phases in the image series.
Figure 2Interpolated 3D reconstruction of mitral annulus. (A) AVJ points were tracked in two-, three-, and four-chamber cine-CMR views to create six distinct spatial points (highlighted in red) sampled in the mitral annulus (MA) per cardiac phase. (B) 3D spline interpolation was applied to the 3D space locations of these points to create a 3D reconstruction of the mitral annulus (MA). (C, D) A 3D MA sweep volume (V, highlighted in green) was generated for each cardiac phase relative to the MA area at t1 (end diastole), by summing incremental volumes calculated from the MA area at that phase and the distance the MA traversed from the previous phase.
Figure 3Mitral annulus sweep volume curve and associated diastolic parameters. (A) Representative 3D models of MA sweep volumes at different phases of the cardiac cycle. (B) Representative MA sweep volume (upper) and sweep rate (lower) profiles from a subject with normal diastolic function. Both curves were normalized to end-systolic sweep volume (ESSV). Cardiac intervals were identified based on the transitions in slope of the sweep volume curve, distinguishing systole, early diastole, mid-diastole, and atrial systole (AS). 50% diastolic sweep volume recovery time (DSVRT50) was measured as the time required in diastole for the MA to recover 50% of ESSV, and was adjusted for RR interval. Normalized peak sweep rates in early diastole (PSRE) and atrial systole (PSRA) are shown in the sweep rate curve. Sweep volume acceleration time (ATSV) was measured from onset of early diastole to the time of PSRE, and sweep volume deceleration time (DTSV) was measured by linear extrapolation of PSRE to baseline.
Population characteristics
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Age, years | 51 ± 17 | 40 ± 14 | 61 ± 14 |
|
| Male, n (%) | 76 | 31 (49%) | 45 (65%) |
|
| Heart Rate, bpm | 71 ± 12 | 72 ± 12 | 71 ± 12 | 0.628 |
|
| ||||
| Hypertension, n (%) | 54 | 16 (26%) | 38 (61%) |
|
| Hyperlipidemia, n (%) | 52 | 17 (27%) | 35 (56%) |
|
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 9 | 3 (5%) | 6 (10%) | 0.491 |
| Tobacco use, n (%) | 45 | 19 (31%) | 26 (42%) | 0.262 |
| Coronary artery disease, n (%) | 29 | 7 (11%) | 22 (35%) |
|
|
| ||||
| Angina, n (%) | 32 | 18 (29%) | 14 (23%) | 0.539 |
| Dyspnea, n (%) | 28 | 9 (15%) | 19 (31%) |
|
| Palpitation/Arrhythmia, n (%) | 29 | 15 (24%) | 14 (23%) | 1.000 |
| Syncope/Pre-syncope, n (%) | 20 | 10 (16%) | 10 (16%) | 1.000 |
| Asymptomatic, n (%) | 35 | 20 (32%) | 15 (24%) | 0.425 |
|
| ||||
| Normal, n (%) | 57 | 42 (68%) | 15 (24%) |
|
| Ischemic heart disease, n (%) | 10 | 3 (5%) | 7 (11%) | 0.323 |
| Congenital heart disease, n (%) | 4 | 3 (5%) | 1 (2%) | 0.619 |
| Infiltrative disease, n (%) | 5 | 1 (2%) | 4 (6%) | 0.365 |
| LV hypertrophy, n (%) | 30 | 6 (10%) | 24 (39%) |
|
| Dilated cardiomyopathy, n (%) | 2 | 0 (0%) | 2 (3%) | 0.496 |
| Inflammatory cardiomyopathy, n (%) | 9 | 5 (8%) | 4 (6%) | 1.000 |
|
| ||||
| Interventricular septal wall thickness, mm | 1.11 ± 0.39 | 0.96 ± 0.32 | 1.25 ± 0.41 |
|
| Inferolateral wall thickness, mm | 0.98 ± 0.18 | 0.9 ± 0.15 | 1.06 ± 0.17 |
|
| LV end-diastolic diameter, mm | 4.52 ± 0.6 | 4.69 ± 0.54 | 4.35 ± 0.61 |
|
| LV end-systolic diameter, mm | 2.86 ± 0.52 | 2.94 ± 0.49 | 2.78 ± 0.55 | 0.102 |
| LV mass index, g/m2 | 87 ± 27 | 80 ± 21 | 95 ± 31 |
|
| LV ejection fraction,% | 64 ± 6 | 62 ± 6 | 65 ± 7 |
|
| LA volume index, ml/m2 | 25 ± 9 | 22 ± 7 | 27 ± 10 |
|
| LA dilatation, n (%) | 30 | 6 (10%) | 24 (39%) |
|
|
| ||||
| LV end-diastolic volume, mL | 152 ± 39 | 157 ± 40 | 147 ± 39 | 0.211 |
| LV end-systolic volume, mL | 59 ± 20 | 62 ± 19 | 57 ± 20 | 0.234 |
| Stroke volume, mL | 93 ± 24 | 95 ± 24 | 90 ± 24 | 0.242 |
| Cardiac output, L/min | 7.4 ± 8.7 | 8.5 ± 12 | 6.2 ± 2 | 0.241 |
| Cardiac index, L/min/m2 | 3.3 ± 0.9 | 3.4 ± 0.9 | 3.2 ± 0.9 | 0.101 |
| LV ejection fraction,% | 61 ± 6 | 61 ± 5 | 62 ± 7 | 0.720 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD or frequencies (percentages). LV = Left ventricular; LA = Left atrial.
*P < 0.05, †P < 0.10, ‡Patient classification based on echocardiography reference.
Figure 4Graphical comparisons between normal diastolic function and diastolic dysfunction in diastole. (A) Representative MA sweep volume and sweep rate profiles of patients with TTE-based normal diastolic function (solid line) and diastolic dysfunction (dashed line) as generated by the proposed CMR method. Apparent differences in relative diastolic indices are seen in normalized peak sweep rates during early diastole (PSRE) and atrial systole (PSRA). (B) Corresponding tissue Doppler imaging, showing qualitatively similar relative lateral MA velocity profiles between the same two patients. Note that the patient with diastolic dysfunction had a decreased early diastolic annular velocity (e′) but an increased atrial systole velocity (a′), resulting in e′/a′ reversal that is typical of diastolic dysfunction.
Diastolic parameters
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Normalized peak sweep rate, early diastole (PSRE), s−1 | 7.72 ± 1.7 | 5.25 ± 1.38 |
|
| Peak sweep rate, early diastole, cm3/s | 117 ± 43 | 65 ± 28 |
|
| Normalized peak sweep rate, atrial systole (PSRA), s−1 | 4.67 ± 1.38 | 6.56 ± 1.99 |
|
| Peak sweep rate, atrial systole, cm3/s | 70 ± 24 | 80 ± 29 |
|
| PSRE/PSRA ratio | 1.82 ± 0.69 | 0.9 ± 0.44 |
|
| Percentage sweep volume recovery, early diastole | 69.09 ± 10.02 | 54.29 ± 12.37 |
|
| Absolute sweep volume, early diastole, cm3 | 10.64 ± 4.1 | 6.83 ± 2.66 |
|
| Absolute sweep volume/stroke volume, early diastole, % | 11.17 ± 2.89 | 7.6 ± 2.21 |
|
| Percentage sweep volume recovery, atrial systole | 33.78 ± 9.92 | 49.1 ± 13.76 |
|
| Absolute sweep volume, atrial systole, cm3 | 5.03 ± 1.72 | 6.01 ± 2.35 |
|
| Absolute sweep volume/stroke volume, atrial systole, % | 5.41 ± 1.78 | 6.81 ± 2.24 |
|
| Normalized average sweep rate, early diastole, s−1 | 4.2 ± 1.02 | 2.53 ± 0.63 |
|
| Normalized average sweep rate, mid-diastole, s−1 | 0.36 ± 0.71 | 0.87 ± 1.34 |
|
| Normalized average sweep rate, atrial systole, s−1 | 2.67 ± 0.94 | 3.88 ± 1.26 |
|
| Sweep volume deceleration time (DTSV), ms | 96.25 ± 36.56 | 144.19 ± 54.89 |
|
| Sweep volume acceleration time (ATSV), ms | 102.48 ± 35.03 | 114.2 ± 41.09 |
|
| 50% Diastolic sweep volume recovery time (DSVRT50), % | 15.58 ± 4 | 24.97 ± 11.03 |
|
|
| |||
| E, cm/s | 84.47 ± 22.22 | 75.81 ± 25.08 |
|
| A, cm/s | 59.45 ± 17.75 | 69.9 ± 22.7 |
|
| E/A | 1.51 ± 0.51 | 1.22 ± 0.67 |
|
| Deceleration time, ms | 219 ± 48 | 230 ± 47 | 0.200 |
| e′ septal, cm/s | 10.14 ± 2.22 | 6.05 ± 1.4 |
|
| a′ septal, cm/s | 8.25 ± 1.89 | 8.98 ± 2.44 |
|
| e′/a′ septal | 1.3 ± 0.41 | 0.75 ± 0.34 |
|
| e′ lateral, cm/s | 14.59 ± 3.95 | 8.1 ± 2.56 |
|
| a′ lateral, cm/s | 9.51 ± 2.95 | 10.4 ± 3.75 | 0.141 |
| e′/a′ lateral | 1.7 ± 0.71 | 0.89 ± 0.44 |
|
| E/e′ (average) | 7.1 ± 2.02 | 11.47 ± 6.26 |
|
Data expressed as mean ± SD.
Peak and average sweep rates were normalized to end-systolic sweep volume. Percentage sweep volume recovery measured the proportion of recovery in reference to end-systolic sweep volume. 50% diastolic sweep volume recovery time was normalized to RR interval.
E = peak early mitral inflow velocity; A = peak late mitral inflow velocity; e′ = early diastolic mitral annular velocity; a′ = late diastolic mitral annular velocity; MA = mitral annulus.
*P < 0.05, †P < 0.10, ‡Patient classification based on echocardiography reference.
Figure 5Correlation between CMR and TDI parameters. Spearman's rank test showed good positive correlations between CMR normalized peak volume sweep rates and TDI MA velocities in early-to-late diastolic ratios. CMR PSRE/PSRA correlated better with TDI lateral e′/a′ than it did with TDI septal e′/a′. However, PSRE/PSRA correlated best with the average e′/a′ of lateral and septal locations.
Classification performance of CMR diastolic parameters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.88 | < 6.65 | 89% | 74% | 77% | 87% | 81% |
|
| 0.82 | < 57.90 | 65% | 87% | 83% | 71% | 76% |
|
| 0.93 | < 3.12 | 85% | 87% | 87% | 86% | 86% |
|
| 0.88 | < 1.17 | 84% | 81% | 81% | 83% | 82% |
|
| 0.83 | > 100.89 | 82% | 74% | 76% | 81% | 78% |
|
| 0.79 | > 19.45 | 63% | 84% | 80% | 69% | 73% |
Classification performance results based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Threshold based on value yielding the greatest classification accuracy.
PSRE = normalized peak sweep rate in early diastole; PSRA = normalized peak sweep rate in atrial systole; DTSV = sweep volume deceleration time; DSVRT50 = 50% diastolic sweep volume recovery time; AUC = area under the curve; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value.
Multivariate analysis to predict TTE-based diastolic dysfunction
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Age | 1.07 | 1.02-1.12 | 0.06 |
|
| HTN | 1.06 | 0.34-3.32 | 0.06 | 0.919 |
| LVH | 9.42 | 2.15-41.2 | 2.24 |
|
| CAD | 1.22 | 0.35-4.21 | 0.20 | 0.758 |
| PSRE | 0.54 | 0.34-0.85 | −0.62 |
|
|
| ||||
| Age | 1.07 | 1.02-1.13 | 0.07 |
|
| HTN | 0.96 | 0.31-2.94 | −0.04 | 0.944 |
| LVH | 9.24 | 2.00-42.6 | 2.22 |
|
| CAD | 0.93 | 0.27-3.24 | −0.07 | 0.913 |
| PSRE/PSRA (per 0.1 increment) | 0.86 | 0.76-0.97 | −0.15 |
|
|
| ||||
| Age | 1.10 | 1.05-1.15 | 0.09 |
|
| HTN | 1.05 | 0.35-3.18 | 0.05 | 0.927 |
| LVH | 10.45 | 2.44-44.8 | 2.35 |
|
| CAD | 1.18 | 0.35-4.02 | 0.17 | 0.791 |
| DTSV (per 10 ms increment) | 1.12 | 0.99-1.28 | 0.12 |
|
|
| ||||
| Age | 1.08 | 1.04-1.13 | 0.08 |
|
| HTN | 1.23 | 0.39-3.87 | 0.20 | 0.726 |
| LVH | 12.18 | 3.12-47.6 | 2.50 |
|
| CAD | 1.04 | 0.29-3.77 | 0.04 | 0.950 |
| DSVRT50 | 1.14 | 1.03-1.26 | 0.13 |
|
Results based on multivariate logistic regression analysis.
CI = confidence interval.
*P < 0.05, †P < 0.10.
Figure 6Prevalence of CMR-based diastolic dysfunction based on clinical status. A predictive model was constructed with multivariate logistic regression, using PSRE, PSRE/PSRA, DTSV, and DSVRT50 as covariates to diagnose CMR-based diastolic dysfunction in patients with (1) and without (0) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), hypertension (HTN) and coronary artery disease (CAD). A higher prevalence of CMR-based diastolic dysfunction was observed in these clinical subgroups.
Reproducibility of CMR sweep volume indices
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| 0.954 | −0.356 | 0.92 | 0.964 | −0.138 | 0.93 |
| (0.823 to 0.988) | (−1.98 to 1.268) | (0.858 to 0.991) | (−1.578 to 1.302) | |||
|
| 0.974 | −0.126 | 0.99 | 0.972 | −0.021 | 0.94 |
| (0.838 to 0.994) | (−0.450 to 0.197) | (0.887 to 0.993) | (−0.501 to 0.461) | |||
|
| 0.931 | 3.427 | 0.87 | 0.928 | −0.143 | 0.87 |
| (0.728 to 0.983) | (−34.167 to 41.021) | (0.704 to 0.982) | (−31.609 to 31.324) | |||
|
| 0.886 | 2.33 | 0.92 | 0.880 | 1.441 | 0.85 |
| (0.568 to 0.971) | (−7.171 to 11.831) | (0.527 to 0.970) | (−11.371 to 14.251) |
ICC = Intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval (CI); bias and limits of agreement generated by Bland–Altman analysis; R correlation coefficient determined by Pearson's r test.