| Literature DB >> 27048459 |
Rui Li1,2, Zhi-gang Yang3,4, Lin-yi Wen1, Xi Liu1, Hua-yan Xu1,5, Qin Zhang1, Ying-kun Guo6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction is highly prevalent in patients with amyloid light-chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis (AL-CA). The aim of this study was to clarify the feasibility of first-pass perfusion imaging using 3 T cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for evaluating the difference in left ventricular (LV) regional myocardial microvascular function among normal subjects and in patients with AL-CA. The amyloidosis patients were classified into those with impaired systolic function [LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50 %] and those with preserved systolic function.Entities:
Keywords: Amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis; Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Coronary microvascular function; Left ventricular function; Perfusion imaging
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27048459 PMCID: PMC4822254 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-016-0240-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1AHA bull’s eye model according to standard segmentation for regional analysis. Based on this model, segmentation of the LV on myocardial first-pass perfusion images included the following: (a) Basal segments; (b) Mid-ventricular segments; and (c) Apex segments. LV wall end-diastolic thickness was also determined using this model
Fig. 2The signal intensity-time curve derived from myocardial perfusion images. The first-pass perfusion values including MaxSI (a), time to max signal intensity (b) and first-pass perfusion upslope (c) were automatically obtained
Baseline Differences Between Cardiac Normal healthy, AL-CA patients with or without LV systolic dysfunction
| Normal subjects ( | CA without SD ( | CA with SD ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Y) | 37.68 ± 11.94 | 60.10 ± 7.85* | 59.82 ± 12.14* |
| Male | 13 (52) | 11 (52) | 6 (55) |
| NYHA functional class | |||
| I | - | 2 (9) | 0 (0) |
| II | - | 10 (48) | 4 (36) |
| III | - | 9 (43) | 5 (46) |
| IV | - | 0 (0) | 2 (18) |
| Echocardiography | |||
| Septal thickness (mm) | 8.73 ± 1.55 | 15.29 ± 2.83* | 17.27 ± 2.57* |
| E/A | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.6* | 2.4 ± 0.8*§ |
| E/E’ | 11.11 ± 2.21 | 17.14 ± 4.33* | 20.82 ± 5.69*§ |
| Cine-CMR | |||
| LVEDV (ml) | 133.78 ± 25.43 | 111.06 ± 26.84* | 118. 20 ± 24.47 |
| LVESV (ml) | 52.62 ± 14.01 | 47.45 ± 12.97 | 71.95 ± 17.71*§ |
| LV SV (ml) | 81.18 ± 15.29 | 63.60 ± 23.44* | 46.25 ± 10.78*§ |
| LVEF (%) | 60.18 ± 4.30 | 56.62 ± 9.43 | 39.28 ± 6.39*§ |
| LV mass (g) | 85.32 ± 23.32 | 127.14 ± 32.29* | 143.55 ± 42.64* |
| Pericardial effusion | - | 12 (57) | 4 (36) |
| Pleural effusion | - | 13 (67) | 7 (63) |
Notes: The values are the mean ± SD, Numbers in the brackets are percentages. * P < 0.017 versus normal group; § P < 0.0017 versus CA with preserved LVEF. AL-CA = light-chain amyloid cardiac amyloidosis; SD = systolic dysfunction; LV = left ventricular; EDV = end diastolic volume; ESV = end systolic volume; EF = ejection fraction; SV = stroke volume
Chemotherapeutic agents used
| Chemotherapy regimen | No. of subjects |
|---|---|
| Cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, dexamethasone | 4 |
| Cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, dexamethasone/prednisone | 1 |
| Bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide | 2 |
| Cyclophosphamide, prednisone/mesna | 1 |
| Cyclophosphamide, prednisone | 2 |
| Cyclophosphamide, prednisone/dexamethasone | 1 |
| Cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, vindesine, epirubicin | 1 |
| Cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone | 1 |
| Thalidomide, dexamethasone | 1 |
| Bortezomib, prednisone | 1 |
| None | 17 |
First-pass perfusion and regional function data of all study groups
| Normal controls ( | CA without SD ( | CA with SD ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upslope | 6.64 ± 2.03 | 4.15 ± 2.11* | 2.89 ± 1.43*§ |
| TTM (sec) | 20.35 ± 13.74 | 39.00 ± 18.60* | 45.81 ± 16.25*§ |
| MaxSI | 52.74 ± 12.10 | 42.08 ± 12.79* | 38.21 ± 18.34*§ |
| EDWT (mm) | 6.92 ± 1.99 | 10.28 ± 3.87* | 11.06 ± 3.72*§ |
| ESWT(mm) | 12.71 ± 3.51 | 16.74 ± 3.59* | 16.29 ± 3.91* |
| Wth(%) | 93.18 ± 62.07 | 77.97 ± 53.05* | 58.64 ± 50.59*§ |
Notes: The values are the mean ± SD, * P < 0.017 versus normal group; § P < 0.017 versus CA without systolic function; SD = systolic dysfunction; TTM = time to max; EDWT = end-diastole wall thickness; ESWT = end-systole wall thickness; Wth = wall thickening
Regional comparison of first perfusion and function parameters between AL-CA subject with or without LV systolic dysfunction
| Basal | Mid-ventricular | apex | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | CA without SD | CA with SD | Normal | CA without SD | CA with SD | Normal | CA without SD | CA with SD | |
| Upslope | 6.52 ± 1.85 | 3.60 ± 1.68* | 2.41 ± 1.32*§ | 6.57 ± 2.07 | 4.15 ± 2.02* | 2.82 ± 1.34*§ | 6.95 ± 2.22 | 4.97 ± 2.55* | 3.71 ± 1.38*§ |
| TTM (sec) | 19.51 ± 9.68 | 39.68 ± 19.11* | 47.05 ± 16.59*§ | 19.78 ± 16.94 | 37.74 ± 18.25* | 44.61 ± 16.34*§ | 22.47 ± 13.47 | 39.88 ± 18.46* | 45.75 ± 15.83* |
| MaxSI | 51.17 ± 10.86 | 37.96 ± 11.15* | 31.67 ± 15.23*§ | 52.96 ± 12.20 | 41.61 ± 12.18* | 38.07 ± 18.24* | 53.96 ± 13.62 | 48.95 ± 13.24* | 48.21 ± 18.63* |
| EDWT (mm) | 8.36 ± 1.88 | 12.85 ± 3.76* | 13.90 ± 3.11* | 6.71 ± 1.44 | 9.82 ± 3.08* | 10.41 ± 3.02* | 5.08 ± 1.00 | 7.09 ± 2.04* | 7.77 ± 1.96* |
| ESWT (mm) | 13.86 ± 3.99 | 18.00 ± 3.03* | 17.43 ± 3.81* | 12.86 ± 2.80 | 17.14 ± 3.40* | 16.39 ± 3.97* | 10.75 ± 2.84 | 14.27 ± 3.45* | 14.44 ± 3.29* |
| Wth(%) | 72.14 ± 59.86 | 48.91 ± 39.54* | 27.70 ± 23.11*§ | 97.47 ± 53.27 | 86.30 ± 52.67 | 65.00 ± 44.18*§ | 118.29 ± 67.79 | 109.06 ± 49.61 | 95.51 ± 61.16* |
Notes: The values are the mean ± SD, other abbreviations are the same as in Tables 1 and 2. * P < 0.017 versus normal group; § P < 0.017 versus CA without systolic dysfunction
Fig. 3Receiver-operating characteristic analysis (ROC) between AL-CA patients with preserved LV systolic function and normal controls. By using the cut-off values of upslope (Green), TTM (Blue) and MaxSI (Red), the first-pass perfusion MR could discriminate the myocardial microvascularity of AL-CA patients with preserved LV systolic function from that of normal controls in the basal (a), mid-ventricular (b) and apex (c) segments
Fig. 4Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis between AL-CA patients with impaired LV systolic function and normal controls. The use of cut-off values of upslope (Green), TTM (Blue) and MaxSI (Red) could discriminate the microcirculation of AL-CA patients with impaired LV systolic function from that of normal controls in the basal (a), mid-ventricular (b) and apex (c) segments
ROC analysis of first-pass perfusion for detecting microvascular dysfunction between AL-CA patients with preserved systolic function and normal controls
| Cutoff | AUC | Sensitivity (%) (95 % CI) | Specificity (%) (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basal segment | ||||
| Upslope | 5 | 0.888 | 87 (82–93) | 81 (74–87) |
| TTM | 20.8 | 0.843 | 79 (70–85) | 73 (66–80) |
| MaxSI | 42 | 0.816 | 68 (59–76) | 85 (78–90) |
| Mid-ventricular segment | ||||
| Upslope | 4 | 0.794 | 58 (49–67) | 90 (84–94) |
| TTM | 19.9 | 0.848 | 85 (78–91) | 67 (59–75) |
| MaxSI | 42 | 0.741 | 58 (49–67) | 82 (75–88) |
| Apical segment | ||||
| Upslope | 4 | 0.747 | 52 (41–63) | 94(87–98) |
| TTM | 21.87 | 0.795 | 77 (67–86) | 70 (60–79) |
| MaxSI | 41 | 0.610 | 37 (27–48) | 86 (78–92) |
Notes: AUC = area under the ROC curve. The abbreviations are the same as in Tables 1 and 2
ROC analysis of first-pass perfusion for detecting microvascular dysfunction between AL-CA patients with impaired systolic function and normal controls
| Cutoff | AUC | Sensitivity (%) (95 % CI) | Specificity (%) (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basal segment | ||||
| Upslope | 4.1 | 0.969 | 92 (83–98) | 93 (88–97) |
| TTM | 21.9 | 0.932 | 97 (90–100) | 76 (68–83) |
| MaxSI | 42 | 0.852 | 79 (67–88) | 85 (78–90) |
| Mid-ventricular segment | ||||
| Upslope | 4 | 0.941 | 89 (79–96) | 90 (84–94) |
| TTM | 21.68 | 0.941 | 98 (92–100) | 77 (69–83) |
| MaxSI | 36 | 0.772 | 61 (48–72) | 94 (89–97) |
| Apical segment | ||||
| Upslope | 4.57 | 0.906 | 77(62–88) | 94 (87–98) |
| TTM | 23 | 0.886 | 95 (85–99) | 74 (64–82) |
| MaxSI | 43 | 0.638 | 52 (37–68) | 77 (68–85) |
Notes: AUC = area under the ROC curve. The abbreviations are the same as in Tables 1 and 2