| Literature DB >> 29061184 |
Ji-Won Hwang1,2, Sung Mok Kim3,4, Sung-Ji Park5,6, Eun Jeong Cho7, Eun Kyoung Kim1,4, Sung-A Chang1,4, Sang-Chol Lee1,4, Yeon Hyeon Choe3,4, Seung Woo Park1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The technique of tissue tracking with balanced steady-state free precession cine sequences was introduced, and allowed myocardial strain to be derived directly, offering advantages over traditional myocardial tagging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between reverse remodeling as an outcome and left ventricular strain using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) tissue tracking, and to evaluate prediction of reverse remodeling by myocardial deformation in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).Entities:
Keywords: Aortic stenosis; Feature tracking; Myocardial fibrosis; Myocardial strain; Reverse remodeling; Strain
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29061184 PMCID: PMC5654100 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-017-0392-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Clinical characteristics and echocardiographic parameter of the study population
| Age, years | 67 (60–74) |
| Male gender | 29 (46.0%) |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 121 (113–137) |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 69 (61–75) |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 69 (62–78) |
| Past medical history | |
| Atrial fibrillation | 3 (4.8%) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 13 (20.6%) |
| Hypertension | 30 (47.6%) |
| Hyperlipidemia | 17 (27.0%) |
| Ex-smoker | 6 (9.5%) |
| Current smoker | 4 (6.3%) |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.83 (0.71–1.02) |
| Diameters of aortic root and ascending aorta | |
| Diameter of aortic annulus (mm) | 21 (20–23) |
| Diameter of Sinus of Valvsalva (mm) | 33.6 (29.6–37.0) |
| Diameter of sinotubular junction (mm) | 27.8 (24.9–30.9) |
| Diameter of ascending aorta (mm) | 38.4 (34.6–42.8) |
| Baseline echocardiographic parameters | |
| LVEF (%) | 61 (56–66) |
| LVEDV(mL) | 129.1 (94–154.2) |
| LVESV (mL) | 48.9 (36–64) |
| LVEDD (mm) | 51 (48–55) |
| LVESD (mm) | 30 (27–36) |
| Interventricular septum (mm) | 12 (10–13) |
| Left ventricular posterior wall (mm) | 11 (11–12) |
| Left atrium size (mm) | 42 (39–46) |
| LAVI (mL/m2) | 43.6 (37.3–54.9) |
| LVMI (g/m2) | 137.8 (117.4–166.5) |
| E velocity (m/s) | 0.69 (0.53–1.04) |
| Deceleration time (msec) | 264 (209–322) |
| e’ velocity (m/s) | 0.05 (0.04–0.06) |
| E/e’ ratio | 15.06 (10.63–20.51) |
| Parameters of grade of aortic stenosis | |
| Max velocity of AV(m/s) | 5.26 (4.56–5.62) |
| AV velocity time integral (cm) | 123.7 (106.6–146.7) |
| Mean pressure gradient of AV (mmHg) | 61.7 (50.1–78.9) |
| LVOT velocity time integral (cm) | 24.8 (21.6–29.7) |
| AVA (cm2) | 0.72 (0.57–0.83) |
| AVAI (cm2/m2) | 0.44 (0.38–0.51) |
Data are presented are number of patients (percent) or median (interquartile range)
LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEDV left ventricular end-diastolic volume, LVESV left ventricular end-systolic volume, LVEDD left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, LVESV left ventricular end-systolic dimension, LAVI left atrium volume index, LVMI left ventricular mass index, AV aortic valve, LVOT left ventricular outflow tract, AVA aortic valve area, AVAI aortic valve area (indexed)
Fig. 1Correlation between non-contrast T1 value and strain measure by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tissue tracking. Various kinds of strain including longitudinal strain, 3D longitudinal strain, radial strain, 3D radial strain, circumferential strain, and 3D circumferential strain by CMR were compared with non-contrast T1 values
Fig. 2Correlation between the value of extracellular volume (ECV) and strain measure by CMR tissue tracking. Various kinds of strain including longitudinal strain, 3D longitudinal strain, radial strain, 3D radial strain, circumferential strain, and 3D circumferential strain by cardiac magnetic resonance were compared with ECV
Fig. 3Correlation between left ventricle (LV) reverse remodeling by transthoracic echocardiography (Echo) and strain by CMR tissue tracking. This was compared using left ventricular mass index (LVMI) between baseline and follow-up by Echo. Correlation between reverse remodeling as LVMI difference between baseline and follow-up Echo and respective strain measured by CMR tissue tracking. (SD; standard deviation, LVMI; left ventricular mass index)
Simple linear regression analysis of variables for the prediction of left ventricular reverse remodeling
| Multiple r2 | Adjusted r2 | Estimated beta | Standard error | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| longitudinal global strain | 0.213 | 0.199 | −3.533 | 0.885 | <0.001 |
| 3D longitudinal global strain | 0.164 | 0.15 | −4.107 | 1.206 | 0.001 |
| radial strain | 0.153 | 0.138 | 0.86 | 0.264 | 0.002 |
| 3D radial strain | 0.164 | 0.15 | 0.914 | 0.268 | 0.001 |
| circumferential strain | 0.112 | 0.097 | −2.532 | 0.93 | 0.009 |
| 3D circumferential strain | 0.177 | 0.163 | −3.36 | 0.945 | <0.001 |
| non-contrast T1 value | 0.191 | 0.177 | −0.314 | 0.084 | <0.001 |
| extracellular volume after 15 min | 0.071 | 0.055 | −2.546 | 1.201 | 0.038 |
| Additive value of strain parameters | |||||
| non-contrast T1 value | |||||
| longitudinal global strain | 0.280 | 0.255 | −2.549 | 0.954 | 0.01 |
| 3D longitudinal global strain | 0.256 | 0.23 | −2.81 | 1.245 | 0.028 |
| radial strain | 0.249 | 0.223 | 0.575 | 0.271 | 0.038 |
| 3D radial strain | 0.260 | 0.234 | 0.638 | 0.274 | 0.023 |
| circumferential strain | 0.226 | 0.199 | −1.529 | 0.94 | 0.11 |
| 3D circumferential strain | 0.253 | 0.227 | −2.234 | 1.019 | 0.032 |
| extracellular volume after 15 min | |||||
| longitudinal global strain | 0.225 | 0.198 | −3.214 | 0.947 | 0.001 |
| 3D longitudinal global strain | 0.175 | 0.146 | −3.616 | 1.338 | 0.009 |
| radial strain | 0.175 | 0.146 | 0.749 | 0.277 | 0.009 |
| 3D radial strain | 0.189 | 0.161 | 0.808 | 0.278 | 0.005 |
| circumferential strain | 0.138 | 0.108 | −2.085 | 0.984 | 0.038 |
| 3D circumferential strain | 0.187 | 0.159 | −2.99 | 1.037 | 0.006 |
All strain parameters were measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial tissue tracking
Multiple linear regression analysis of variables for the prediction of left ventricular reverse remodeling
| Estimated beta | standard error | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | radial strain | 1.834 | 0.839 | 0.033 |
| circumferential strain | 7.527 | 3.275 | 0.026 | |
| longitudinal global strain | −38.444 | 11.797 | 0.002 | |
| 3D circumferential strain | 30.932 | 12.572 | 0.017 | |
| 3D longitudinal global strain | −4.123 | 6.884 | 0.55 | |
| longitudinal global strain: 3D longitudinal global strain | −2.390 | 0.796 | 0.004 | |
| 3D circumferential strain: 3D longitudinal global strain | 2.179 | 0.840 | 0.012 | |
| Model 2 | max velocity of aortic valve | −12.566 | 4.845 | 0.012 |
| longitudinal global strain | −3.335 | 0.849 | <0.001 |
All strain parameters (6 variables) were calculated by a stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, and several multiple linear regression models were performed with strain parameters or baseline parameters; Model 1, adjusting the stepwise selection as considered with interaction; Model 2, including the main effect term adjusting with baseline parameters such as the age, gender, E velocity, e` velocity, max velocity of aortic valve, ejection fraction by Simpson’s method
All strain parameters were measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial tissue tracking