| Literature DB >> 26863618 |
Marcel Prothmann1,2, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff1,2, Agnieszka Töpper1,2, Matthias A Dieringer1,2, Etham Shahid1,2, Andreas Graessl1, Jan Rieger3, Darius Lysiak1,3, C Thalhammer1, Till Huelnhagen1, Peter Kellman4, Thoralf Niendorf1,3,5, Jeanette Schulz-Menger1,2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) provides valuable information in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) based on myocardial tissue differentiation and the detection of small morphological details. CMR at 7.0T improves spatial resolution versus today's clinical protocols. This capability is as yet untapped in HCM patients. We aimed to examine the feasibility of CMR at 7.0T in HCM patients and to demonstrate its capability for the visualization of subtle morphological details.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26863618 PMCID: PMC4749213 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148066
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Feasibility of CMR in HCM patients at 7.0T.
High Resolution CINE images of each patient (slice thickness 2.5 mm) All images were evaluable as shown by these two-chamber views, but the quality scoring revealed differences. A-H) Examples with a good images quality and mild artifacts. I-M) Images with different types of artifacts
Clinical characteristics and left ventricular assessment for healthy volunteers and HCM patients at 7.0 T.
BMI—Body Mass Index, LVEDV—Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume, LVEF—Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, LVESV—Left Ventricular End-Systolic Volume, PE—Pericardial Effusion, WMA—Wall Motion Abnormalities.
| patients with HCM | healthy volunteers | |
|---|---|---|
| 13 (9 male) | 13 (9 male) | |
| 56 (25–71) | 55 (24–71) | |
| 27 (22–36) | 24 (19–29) | |
| 11 | 4 | |
| 1 | - | |
| 1 | - | |
| - | ||
| 7 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 12 | - | |
| 174.9 (112.8–273.5) | 100.3 (75.2–134.5) | |
| 136.7 (68.5–231.2) | 127.2 (94.9–186.8) | |
| 59.9 (50.2–76.0) | 58.5 (49.8–71.6) | |
| 51.2 (26.3–71.3) | 55.4 (35.8–75.8) |
Fig 2Distribution and prevalence of fibrosis and crypts.
Myocardial crypts were only located in the regions with fibrosis as identified by LGE at 3.0T
Fig 3Case example: Patient with myocardial crypts.
In the top row fibrosis imaging (LGE at 3.0T) is shown. The yellow arrow indicates the fibrosis (A long axis view B short axis view). In the bottom row cine imaging at 7.0T is shown The red arrow indicates the myocardial crypts (A long axis view B short axis view). Remarkable, fibrosis and crypts have a certain overlap. One may assume, that the bright signal at 3.0T might be also induced by blood within the crypts.
Fig 4HCM patient with myocardial crypts in the anteroseptal region.
Upper row: 3-chamber view with different techniques, Bottom row: short axis view using the same techniques, A and B CINE images at 3.0T, C and D Late Gadolinium Enhancement at 3.0T, E and F CINE images at 7.0T, G and H CINE images at 1.5 T CMR, I and J Fat-Water images, Single arrows indicates LGE at 3.0T, Double arrow displays myocardial crypt at 7.0T.
Left ventricular assessment of HCM patients at different field strengths.
SAX = Short axis
| 7.0T(biplanar) | 3.0T(biplanar) | 3.0T(sax) | p-value(3.0T biplanar vs. 3.0T sax) | p-value(7.0T biplanar vs 3.0T biplanar) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fig 5Comparison of left ventricular function between the different field strengths.
The comparison of left ventricular function revealed no ignificant differences between the field strengths, Top: Left ventricular function at 3.0 T (biplanar versus short axis). Bottom: Left ventricular function at 7.0 T compared to 3.0 T (both biplanar).