BACKGROUND: Optimal patient characterization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is essential to tailor successful treatment strategies. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived T1 mapping can noninvasively quantify diffuse myocardial fibrosis as extracellular volume fraction (ECV). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to elucidate the diagnostic performance of T1 mapping in HFpEF by examining the relationship between ECV and invasively measured parameters of diastolic function. It also investigated the potential of ECV to differentiate among pathomechanisms in HFpEF. METHODS: We performed T1 mapping in 24 patients with HFpEF and 12 patients without heart failure symptoms. Pressure-volume loops were obtained with a conductance catheter during basal conditions and handgrip exercise. Transient pre-load reduction was used to extrapolate the diastolic stiffness constant. RESULTS: Patients with HFpEF showed higher ECV (p < 0.01), elevated load-independent passive left ventricular (LV) stiffness constant (beta) (p < 0.001), and a longer time constant of active LV relaxation (p = 0.02). ECV correlated highly with beta (r = 0.75; p < 0.001). Within the HFpEF cohort, patients with ECV greater than the median showed a higher beta (p = 0.05), whereas ECV below the median identified patients with prolonged active LV relaxation (p = 0.01) and a marked hypertensive reaction to exercise due to pathologic arterial elastance (p = 0.04). On multiple linear regression analyses, ECV independently predicted intrinsic LV stiffness (β = 0.75; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse myocardial fibrosis, assessed by CMR-derived T1 mapping, independently predicts invasively measured LV stiffness in HFpEF. Additionally, ECV helps to noninvasively distinguish the role of passive stiffness and hypertensive exercise response with impaired active relaxation. (Left Ventricular Stiffness vs. Fibrosis Quantification by T1 Mapping in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [STIFFMAP]; NCT02459626).
BACKGROUND: Optimal patient characterization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is essential to tailor successful treatment strategies. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived T1 mapping can noninvasively quantify diffuse myocardial fibrosis as extracellular volume fraction (ECV). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to elucidate the diagnostic performance of T1 mapping in HFpEF by examining the relationship between ECV and invasively measured parameters of diastolic function. It also investigated the potential of ECV to differentiate among pathomechanisms in HFpEF. METHODS: We performed T1 mapping in 24 patients with HFpEF and 12 patients without heart failure symptoms. Pressure-volume loops were obtained with a conductance catheter during basal conditions and handgrip exercise. Transient pre-load reduction was used to extrapolate the diastolic stiffness constant. RESULTS:Patients with HFpEF showed higher ECV (p < 0.01), elevated load-independent passive left ventricular (LV) stiffness constant (beta) (p < 0.001), and a longer time constant of active LV relaxation (p = 0.02). ECV correlated highly with beta (r = 0.75; p < 0.001). Within the HFpEF cohort, patients with ECV greater than the median showed a higher beta (p = 0.05), whereas ECV below the median identified patients with prolonged active LV relaxation (p = 0.01) and a marked hypertensive reaction to exercise due to pathologic arterial elastance (p = 0.04). On multiple linear regression analyses, ECV independently predicted intrinsic LV stiffness (β = 0.75; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse myocardial fibrosis, assessed by CMR-derived T1 mapping, independently predicts invasively measured LV stiffness in HFpEF. Additionally, ECV helps to noninvasively distinguish the role of passive stiffness and hypertensive exercise response with impaired active relaxation. (Left Ventricular Stiffness vs. Fibrosis Quantification by T1 Mapping in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [STIFFMAP]; NCT02459626).
Authors: Dimitrios Maragiannis; Paulino A Alvarez; Mohamad G Ghosn; Karen Chin; Jeremy J Hinojosa; John M Buergler; Dipan J Shah; Sherif F Nagueh Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Omar Niss; Robert Fleck; Fowe Makue; Tarek Alsaied; Payal Desai; Jeffrey A Towbin; Punam Malik; Michael D Taylor; Charles T Quinn Journal: Blood Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Kathryn Dryer; Mark Gajjar; Nikhil Narang; Margaret Lee; Jonathan Paul; Atman P Shah; Sandeep Nathan; Javed Butler; Charles J Davidson; William F Fearon; Sanjiv J Shah; John E A Blair Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Viviany R Taqueti; Scott D Solomon; Amil M Shah; Akshay S Desai; John D Groarke; Michael T Osborne; Jon Hainer; Courtney F Bibbo; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Frank Kramer; Hani N Sabbah; James J Januzzi; Faiez Zannad; J Peter van Tintelen; Erik B Schelbert; Raymond J Kim; Hendrik Milting; Richardus Vonk; Brien Neudeck; Richard Clark; Klaus Witte; Wilfried Dinh; Burkert Pieske; Javed Butler; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Maximilian von Roeder; Johannes Tammo Kowallick; Karl-Philipp Rommel; Stephan Blazek; Christian Besler; Karl Fengler; Joachim Lotz; Gerd Hasenfuß; Christian Lücke; Matthias Gutberlet; Holger Thiele; Andreas Schuster; Philipp Lurz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Camilo Toledo; David C Andrade; Claudia Lucero; Alexis Arce-Alvarez; Hugo S Díaz; Valentín Aliaga; Harold D Schultz; Noah J Marcus; Mónica Manríquez; Marcelo Faúndez; Rodrigo Del Rio Journal: J Physiol Date: 2017-03-19 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Mohammad A Khan; Eric Y Yang; Duc T Nguyen; Faisal Nabi; Jeremy Hinojosa; Maria Jabel; Sherif F Nagueh; Edward A Graviss; Dipan J Shah Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 7.792