| Literature DB >> 26062931 |
Christophe de Meester de Ravenstein1,2, Caroline Bouzin3,4, Siham Lazam5,6, Jamila Boulif7,8, Mihaela Amzulescu9,10, Julie Melchior11,12, Agnès Pasquet13,14, David Vancraeynest15,16, Anne-Catherine Pouleur17,18, Jean-Louis J Vanoverschelde19,20, Bernhard L Gerber21,22.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gadolinium (Gd) Extracellular volume fraction (ECV) by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) has been proposed as a non-invasive method for assessment of diffuse myocardial fibrosis. Yet only few studies used 3 T CMR to measure ECV, and the accuracy of ECV measurements at 3 T has not been established. Therefore the aims of the present study were to validate measurement of ECV by MOLLI T1 mapping by 3 T CMR against fibrosis measured by histopathology. We also evaluated the recently proposed hypothesis that native-T1 mapping without contrast injection would be sufficient to detect fibrosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26062931 PMCID: PMC4464705 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-015-0150-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Patients characteristics
| All patients | Aortic stenosis | Aortic regurgitation | Mitral regurgitation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| Age (year) | 58 ± 17 | 70 ± 12 | 47 ± 17 | 54 ± 14 |
| Male Gender (n, %) | 24 (77 %) | 10 (83 %) | 7 (78 %) | 7 (70 %) |
| Weight (kg) | 79 ± 17 | 75 ± 17 | 88 ± 18 | 74 ± 12 |
| Height (cm) | 174 ± 10 | 171 ± 8 | 175 ± 10 | 176 ± 11 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26 ± 5 | 26 ± 5 | 29 ± 4 | 24 ± 3 |
| Hypertension (n, %) | 15 (48 %) | 9 (75 %) | 5 (56 %) | 1 (10 %) |
| Smoking (n, %) | 7 (23 %) | 3 (25 %) | 3 (33 %) | 1 (10 %) |
| Hyperlipemia (n, %) | 8 (26 %) | 8 (67 %) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) |
| Diabetes Mellitus (n, %) | 2 (6 %) | 2 (17 %) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) |
| NYHA Class I/II | 15 (48 %) / 16 (52 %) | 3 (25 %) / 9 (75 %) | 7 (78 %) / 2 (22 %) | 5 (50 %) / 5 (50 %) |
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 5 (16 %) | 4 (33 %) | 0 (0 %) | 1 (10 %) |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 65 ± 7 | 65 ± 6 | 68 ± 8 | 64 ± 8 |
| Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) | 134 ± 18 | 134 ± 11 | 152 ± 19 | 119 ± 10 |
| Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) | 72 ± 13 | 71 ± 12 | 71 ± 19 | 74 ± 9 |
BMI: Body Mass Index, NYHA: New York Heart Association SD: Standard Deviation
Fig. 1Example of pre and post contrast T1 maps and histophatology. Pre and post contrast T1 Maps s and fitted T1 values (left panel) and c corresponding histopathology (right panel)
Fig. 2Correlation between quantitatively measured LGE and fibrosis by histopathology. Correlation between quantitatively measured LGE and % histological fibrosis for the whole population panel (a) and individual curves in patients with aortic regurgitation panel (b) mitral regurgitation panel (c) and aortic stenosis panel (d)
Blood and myocardial T1 times and ECV in the region corresponding to the bioposy in different patient groups
| All patients | Aortic stenosis | Aortic regurgitation | Mitral regurgitation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| T1 Blood Pre-c. (ms) | 1712 ± 99 | 1742 ± 131 | 1677 ± 59 | 1709 ± 79 |
| T1 Myocardium Pre-c. (ms) | 1097 ± 70 | 1103 ± 87 | 1109 ± 63 | 1080 ± 56 |
| T1 Blood Post-c. (ms) | 268 ± 47 | 277 ± 45 | 256 ± 34 | 268 ± 59 |
| T1 Myocardium Post-c. (ms) | 409 ± 64 | 425 ± 64 | 405 ± 52 | 395 ± 75 |
| Hct (%) | 40.9 ± 3.6 | 40.4 ± 4.9 | 41.1 ± 3.6 | 41.4 ± 1.6 |
| λ (%) | 48.9 ± 8.6 | 48.4 ± 11.0 | 47.7±8.5 | 50.7 ± 5.4 |
| ECV (%) | 28.9 ± 5.5 | 28.8 ± 6.9 | 28.2 ± 5.9 | 29.8 ± 3.6 |
Pre-c.:pre-contrast, Post-c.: post-contrast, Hc: Hematrocrit, ECV: Extra Cellular Volume, λ: partition coefficient
Fig. 3Correlation between pre and post contrast myocardial T1 times and fibrosis by histopathology. Correlation between pre and post-contrast myocardial T1 times and % histological fibrosis for the whole population panel (a) and individual curves in patients with aortic regurgitation panel (b) mitral regurgitation panel (c) and aortic stenosis panel (d)
Fig. 4Correlation between ECV by Molli and fibrosis by histopathology. Correlation between ECV and % histological fibrosis for the whole population panel (a) and individual curves in patients with aortic regurgitation panel (b) mitral regurgitation panel (c) and aortic stenosis panel (d)
Segmental variations of pre and post contrast T1 times, partition coefficient and ECV on the mid-ventricular slice
| Entire LV | Anterior | Anterolateral | Infero-lateral | Inferior | Infero-septal | Antero-septal | P for segmental difference (Anova) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre contrast T1 time (ms) | 1104 ± 59 | 1037 ± 108* | 1111 ± 73 | 1117 ± 80 | 1136 ± 84 | 1131 ± 89 | 1094 ± 95 | < 0.001 |
| Post contrast T1 time (ms) | 415 ± 59 | 412 ± 77 | 410 ± 64 | 427 ± 69 | 423 ± 61 | 417 ± 75 | 409 ± 68 | 0.73 (NS) |
| Partition coefficient λ (%) | 48 ± 7 | 48 ± 12 | 50 ± 11 | 47 ± 10 | 47 ± 9 | 50 ± 22 | 49 ± 9 | 0.51 (NS) |
| ECV (%) | 28 ± 4 | 29 ± 8 | 29 ± 6 | 28 ± 6 | 28 ± 5 | 30 ± 13 | 29 ± 5 | 0.54 (NS) |
Pre-c.:pre-contrast, Post-c.: post-contrast, Hc: Hematrocrit, ECV: Extra Cellular Volume, λ: partition coefficient
Fig. 5Bland-Altmann analysis of inter and intra observer reproducibility of T1 times and ECV. a intra observer and b inter-observer reproducibility of post-contrastT1 times measurement, c intra- and d inter-observer reproducibility of ECV measurements. Obs: Observer, Myoc: Myocardium, post-c.: post-contrast