| Literature DB >> 26692265 |
Bhairav B Mehta1, Daniel A Auger2, Jorge A Gonzalez3, Virginia Workman4, Xiao Chen5, Kelvin Chow6, Claire J Stump7, Sula Mazimba8, Jamie L W Kennedy9, Elizabeth Gay10, Michael Salerno11,12,13, Christopher M Kramer14,15, Frederick H Epstein16,17, Kenneth C Bilchick18.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of diffuse right ventricular (RV) fibrosis is of particular interest in pulmonary hypertension (PH) and heart failure (HF). Current cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T1 mapping techniques such as Modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) imaging have limited resolution, but accelerated and navigator-gated Look-Locker imaging for cardiac T1 estimation (ANGIE) is a novel CMR sequence with spatial resolution suitable for T1 mapping of the RV. We tested the hypothesis that patients with PH would have significantly more RV fibrosis detected with MRI ANGIE compared with normal volunteers and patients having HF with reduced (LV) ejection fraction (HFrEF) without co-existing PH, independent of RV dilitation and dysfunction.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26692265 PMCID: PMC4687111 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-015-0209-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Examples of ANGIE T1 maps for PH and HFrEF. ANGIE T1 maps before and after injection of gadolinium in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (a, b) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) (c, d) show excellent definition of the right ventricular (RV) free wall
Baseline characteristics
| PH ( | HFrEF ( | Normal ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years [IQR]) | 64.5 (47.5–70.5) | 60.0 (53.0–65.0) | 24.4 (21.7–26.3 | <0.001 |
| Gender (% female) | 8 (66.7) | 1 (10.0) | 8 (80.0) | 0.004 |
| BMI (kg/m2 [IQR]) | 25.4 (23.0–29.3) | 29.2 (26.0–32.7) | 24.1 (21.2–26.3) | 0.47 |
| Ischemic HD (%) | 1 (8.3) | 8 (80.0) | 0 (0.0) | <0.0001 |
| Congenital HD (%) | 1a (8.3) | 1 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1.0 |
| DM (%) | 2 (16.7) | 3 (30.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.23 |
| OSA (%) | 3 (25.0) | 2 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.33 |
| HIV (%) | 2 (16.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.31 |
| CTEPH (%) | 2 (16.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.31 |
| Medication-ERA | 6 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.002 |
| Medication-sildenafil | 7 (58.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.0003 |
| Medication-PA | 2 (16.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.31 |
Continuous variable are reported as median (IQR)
CTEPH chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, DM diabetes mellitus, ERA endothelin receptor antagonist, HD heart disease, HIV human immunodeficiency virus, OSA obstructive sleep apnea, PA prostacyclin analogue, TE thromboembolism
aThis patient has severe pulmonary hypertension resulting from late repair of a ventricular septal defect
CMR parameters
| PH ( | HFrEF ( | Normal ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RVEF (%) | 34.0 (30.5–42.5) | 41.0 (38.0–48.0) | 55.5 (52.0–58.0) | 0.001 |
| RVEDVI (ml/m2) | 87.9 (75.0–119.2) | 59.0 (50.4–67.9) | 60.8 (59.0-70.1) | 0.02 |
| RVESVI (ml/m2) | 59.1 (47.7–80.9) | 35.0 (23.0–37.4) | 29.8 (26.8-32.4) | 0.007 |
| RV T1 pre-contrast (ms) | 1056 (1021–1081) | 1003 (922–1029) | 974 (927–996) | 0.005 |
| RV T1 post-contrast (ms) | 482 (428–509) | 480 (449–506) | 514 (503–538) | 0.05 |
| RV-ECV | 0.343 (0.331-0.352) | 0.294 (0.272-0.301) | 0.270 (0.251-0.281) | <0.0001 |
| LVEF (%) | 55.0 (50.0–58.5) | 28.0 (19.0–31.0) | 61.2 (59.7–62.9) | <0.0001 |
| LVEDVI (ml/m2) | 58.2 (43.1–66.1) | 109.0 (102.9–124.8) | 84.3 (80.3–90.3) | 0.0001 |
| LVESVI (ml/m2) | 28.2 (21.2–41.6) | 62.3 (45.5–79.6) | 32.7 (29.9–37.4) | 0.001 |
| LVMI (g/m2) | 36.9 (32.7–41.0) | 61.1 (50.7–70.5) | 32.3 (30.1-35.8) | 0.008 |
| LV T1 pre-contrast (ms) | 988 (963–1006) | 969 (921–988) | 971 (948–986) | 0.40 |
| LV T1 post-contrast (ms) | 495 (438–542) | 480 (454–505) | 519 (491–546) | 0.28 |
| LV-ECV | 0.305 (0.295-0.308) | 0.276 (0.258-0.290) | 0.271 (0.251-0.279) | 0.002 |
Results are shown as the median (IQR)
ECV extracellular volume fraction, LV left ventricle, LVEDVI left ventricular end-diastolic volume index, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVESVI left ventricular end-systolic volume index, RV right ventricle, RVEDVI right ventricular end-diastolic volume index, RVEF right ventricular ejection fraction, RVESVI right ventricular end-systolic volume index
Fig. 2Myocardial partition coefficients for gadolinium-DTPA (λGadolinium) in patients with PH and HFrEF. Results for the right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) λGadolinium are shown for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (a, b) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) (c, d). λGadolinium is estimated as the slope of the linear fit of 1/(myocardial T1) vs 1/ (LV blood pool T1) measured at various time points pre- and post-injection of gadolinium-DTPA
Fig. 3Validation of the accuracy of ECV measurements using ANGIE T1 mapping. a This panel shows the correlation plot comparing left ventricular extracellular volume (LV-ECV) in pulmonary hypertension (PH) obtained with accelerated and navigator-gated Look-Locker imaging for cardiac T1 estimation (ANGIE) versus the modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) imaging. The ANGIE measurements of LV-ECV (in regions excluding scar on late gadolinium enhancement) in PH patients were in close agreement with those of MOLLI (r = 0.91; p < 0.001), confirming the accuracy of ECV measurements performed using ANGIE. b The corresponding Bland-Altman plot is shown. SD = standard deviation
Fig. 4ECV results in PH, HFrEF, and normal volunteers. a Box plots are shown for these three groups of patients. RV-ECV is higher in PH versus v HFrEF (p < 0.0001), in PH versus normal volunteers (p < 0.0001), and in HFrEF versus normal volunteers (p = 0.049). b Box plots are shown for the differences in RV-ECV and LV-ECV in these three groups of patients. The difference between RV-ECV and LV-ECV is greater in PH versus HFrEF (p < 0.0006) and greater in PH versus normal volunteers (p < 0.0001). The RV-LV ECV difference in HFrEF versus normal volunteers did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.15)
Fig. 5Relationship between RV systolic dysfunction and RV-ECV. Right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and RV extracellular volume fraction (RV-ECV) are each divided into three groups, and the distribution of RV-ECV for different RVEF groups is shown. There is a significant correlation between RVEF and RV-ECV (r = −0.75; p = 0.001)
Fig. 63D depiction of relationships among RV Fibrosis, dysfunction, and dilitation. The 3D surface plot shows the complex relationships among RV-ECV, RVEF, and RVEDVI. Please also refer to Table 3, which shows that patient group, RVEDVI, and RVEF are independently associated with RV-ECV. The surface is highest in the corner corresponding to decreased RVEF and increased RVEDVI
Multivariable model for RV-ECV
| Variable | DF | Parameter estimate | Standard error | t value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1 | 0.361 | 0.0182 | 19.8 | <.0001 |
| RVEF | 1 | −0.000829 | 0.000360 | −2.3 | 0.03 |
| RVEDVI | 1 | 0.000296 | 0.000128 | 2.32 | 0.03 |
| Diagnostic group | 1 | −0.0234 | 0.00563 | −4.16 | 0.0003 |