| Literature DB >> 25881050 |
Eva Sammut1,2, Niloufar Zarinabad3, Roman Wesolowski4, Geraint Morton5, Zhong Chen6, Manav Sohal7, Gerry Carr-White8, Reza Razavi9, Amedeo Chiribiri10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is playing an expanding role in the assessment of patients with heart failure (HF). The assessment of myocardial perfusion status in HF can be challenging due to left ventricular (LV) remodelling and wall thinning, coexistent scar and respiratory artefacts. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of quantitative CMR myocardial perfusion analysis in patients with HF.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25881050 PMCID: PMC4326191 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-015-0124-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Table showing demographic data and structural CMR findings for subjects studied
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male Gender | 19/28 (68%) | 22/30 (73%) | 22 (67%) | - | - | - | - |
| Age (years) | 58 ± 14 | 63 ± 12 | 54 ± 18 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.08 | 0.79 |
| BSA (m2) | 1.86 ± 0.21 | 1.96 ± 0.19 | 1.90 ± 0.19 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 0.70 | 0.27 |
| LV EDV (ml/m2) | 102 ± 28 | 112 ± 33 | 71 ± 18 | 0.48 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | <0.0001* |
| LV ESV (ml/m2) | 61 ± 26 | 73 ± 31 | 25 ± 8 | 0.16 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | <0.0001* |
| LVEF (%) | 42 ± 9 | 37 ± 10 | 65 ± 4 | 0.06 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | <0.0001* |
| LV mass (g/m2) | 73 ± 18 | 70 ± 18 | 55 ± 13 | 1.00 | 0.001* | 0.006* | 0.001* |
| RV EDV (ml/m2) | 80 ± 22 | 74 ± 20 | 72 ± 18 | 0.88 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.30 |
| RV ESV (ml/m2) | 40 ± 20 | 35 ± 16 | 28 ± 10 | 0.54 | 0.008* | 0.24 | 0.01* |
| RVEF (%) | 51 ± 13 | 55 ± 12 | 62 ± 7 | 0.58 | 0.001* | 0.02* | 0.001* |
| LA area (cm2) | 25 ± 7 | 26 ± 6 | 22 ± 5 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
| RA area (cm2) | 21 ± 6 | 21 ± 5 | 19 ± 4 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.43 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | |||||||
| Stress | 103 ± 4 | 104 ± 3 | 117 ± 7 | 0.06 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | |
| Rest | 62 ± 5 | 64 ± 2 | 75 ± 3 | 0.06 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | |
| SBP (mmHg) | |||||||
| Stress | 102 ± 6 | 102 ± 4 | 110 ± 8 | 0.73 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | |
| Rest | 111 ± 3 | 109 ± 3 | 126 ± 7 | 0.09 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | |
| DBP (mmHg) | |||||||
| Stress | 69 ± 5 | 69 ± 5 | 76 ± 3 | 0.43 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | |
| Rest | 73 ± 4 | 73 ± 5 | 79 ± 4 | 0.54 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* |
(Abbreviations: SBP- systolic blood pressure; DBP-diastolic blood pressure).
*Denotes significance.
Table showing rest, stress and MPR perfusion values for groups studied
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stress perfusion Normal LV group (ml/g/min) | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 1.6 ± 0.8 | - | 0.08 | - |
| Stress perfusion NICM group (ml/g/min) | 1.9 ± 0.8 | - | - | - | - |
| Stress perfusion ICM group (ml/g/min) | 2.2 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 0.9 | 1.5 ± 0.7 | 0.02* | 0.006* |
| Rest perfusion Normal LV group (ml/g/min) | 0.86 ± 0.30 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | - | 0.83 | - |
| Rest perfusion NICM group (ml/g/min) | 0.90 ± 0.19 | - | - | - | - |
| Rest perfusion ICM group (ml/g/min) | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.25 | 0.83 |
| MPR Normal LV group | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 1.7 ± 0.8 | - | 0.04* | - |
| MPR NICM group | 2.2 ± 0.8 | - | - | - | - |
| MPR ICM group | 2.3 ± 0.8 | 1.8 ± 0.9 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 0.04* | 0.004* |
*Denotes significance.
Figure 1Perfusion images from a HF patient with a circumflex coronary artery lesion causing a perfusion abnormality extending from base (A) to mid (B) to apical (C) level. Images seen vertically on the right show the perfusion maps corresponding to the ventricular level, the central column shows superimposed images. Note that there is mild respiratory artifact (white arrows) and that dark rim artifact seen in the apical inferoseptal wall (orange arrow).
Figure 2Perfusion images from three different HF patients with image on the left, perfusion map on the right and superimposed images in the centre. Row A shows thinning of the mid inferior wall with peri-infarct ischemia in the territory of the RCA. Row B shows ischemia in the territory of the LAD. Row C shows homogenous perfusion in a patient with thinned and dilated ventricle.
Table showing results of coronary angiography versus perfusion CMR results for patients in ICM and Normal LV groups
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ICM group | 25/30 (83%) | 12/25 (48%) | 11/25 (44%) | 0.462 (p = 0.003*) | 11/30 (37%) | 4/11 (36%) | 4/11 (16%) | 0.603 (<0.001*) | 13/30 (43%) | 9/13 (69%) | 6/13 (46%) | 0.718 (p = <0.001*) |
| Normal LV group | 16/33 (48%) | 0/33 | 6/16 (37.5%) | 0.382 (0.005*) | 11/33 (33%) | 0/11 | 6/11 (55%) | 0.615 (<0.001*) | 13/33 (39%) | 0/13 | 6/13 (46%) | 0.510 (p = 0.001*) |
(Abbreviations: angio - invasive coronary angiogram; CAD - coronary artery disease; iPD- inducible perfusion defect; LAD- left anterior descending artery; Cx- circumflex artery; RCA- right coronary artery, LGE-late gadolinium enhancement).
*Denotes significance.
Table showing results of the Chi-squared tests for qualitative assessment of image quality showing no significant differences between groups
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Overall image quality | 2.559 | 0.6342 |
| Respiratory artefacts | 5.359 | 0.2524 |
| Dark rim artefacts | 1.863 | 0.7609 |
Figure 3Figure showing the relative scores for image quality, respiratory artefacts and dark rim artefacts according to group.