| Literature DB >> 30643944 |
Yu Zhang1, Wen Zeng2, Wei Chen3, Yushu Chen1, Tong Zhu1, Jiayu Sun1, Zhigang Liang2, Wei Cheng1, Lei Wang1, Bing Wu1, Li Gong2, Victor A Ferrari4, Jie Zheng5, Fabao Gao6,7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To detect diffuse myocardial fibrosis in different severity levels of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (DD) in spontaneous type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) rhesus monkeys.Entities:
Keywords: Diastole; Extracellular matrix; Fibrosis; Rhesus monkey; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30643944 PMCID: PMC6510861 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5950-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Basic characteristics
| Healthy control animals ( | Monkeys with type 2 diabetes and mild diastolic dysfunction ( | Monkeys with type 2 diabetes and moderate diastolic dysfunction ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male sex | 9 | 8 (88.89%) | 9 | |
| Age (years) | 13.33 ± 1.11 | 14.55 ± 2.60 | 14.11 ± 1.88 | 0.496 |
| Body weight (kg) | 10.15 ± 0.84 | 10.94 ± 1.42 | 10.83 ± 1.53 | 0.513 |
| Diabetes duration (years) | 0 | 1–5 | 1–5 | |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 4.24 (4.05–4.48) | 6.20 (5.53–6.32)‡ | 6.43 (6.08–6.58)‡ | 0.000 |
| HbA1c (%) | 4.35 (4.30–4.45) | 5.10 (4.80–5.30)‡ | 4.90 (4.75–5.10)‡ | 0.000 |
| FRA (μmol/L) | 179.40 ± 8.56 | 194.57 ± 14.01 | 199.40 ± 15.82 | 0.075 |
| TC (μmol/L) | 3.05 ± 0.60 | 3.61 ± 0.67 | 3.12 ± 0.59 | 0.172 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 0.38 ± 0.14 | 0.51 ± 0.25 | 0.51 ± 0.31 | 0.464 |
| HDL-c (mmol/L) | 1.77 ± 0.58 | 2.30 ± 0.67 | 1.84 ± 0.88 | 0.263 |
| LDL-c (mmol/L) | 1.39 ± 0.49 | 1.48 ± 0.28 | 1.21 ± 0.44 | 0.358 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 5.13 ± 0.96 | 5.18 ± 1.33 | 4.06 ± 0.53 | 0.180 |
| Scr (μmol/L) | 103.75 ± 20.79 | 103.00 ± 12.05 | 102.75 ± 19.97 | 0.996 |
| ALT (IU/L) | 56.30 ± 25.73 | 47.52 ± 23.05 | 46.80 ± 18.38 | 0.757 |
| AST (IU/L) | 29.98 ± 7.16 | 23.52 ± 5.77 | 24.90 ± 8.02 | 0.292 |
| GGT (IU/L) | 67.80 ± 15.93 | 74.71 ± 17.27 | 85.40 ± 23.21 | 0.356 |
| Mean SBP (mm HG) | 125.50 ± 10.61 | 130.35 ± 23.65 | 132.76 ± 15.45 | 0.576 |
| Mean DBP (mm HG) | 68.75 ± 9.90 | 63.48 ± 8.68 | 67.42 ± 5.13 | 0.657 |
Values are given as mean ± standard deviation, N (%), or median (Q1–Q3)
p value was the results of one-way analysis of variance (for normally distributed date) or Kruskal-Wallis H test (for non-normally distributed date). ALT, glutamic-pyruvic transaminase; AST, glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; FRA, fructosamine; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; HDL-c, serum high-density lipoprotein; LDL-c, serum low-density lipoprotein; SBP, systolic blood pressure; Scr, serum creatinine; TC, serum total cholesterol; TG, serum triglyceride; Q, quartile
*Compared between three groups
‡p < 0.05 compared with group 1 (according to the results of Fisher’s least significant difference test and Student-Newman-Keuls test or Dunn-Bonferroni test for post hoc analysis)
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters
| Sequences | Cine | T1ρ mapping | T1 mapping | Late gadolinium enhancement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Field of view read (mm) | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 |
| Field of view phase (mm) | 125 | 140 | 140 | 135 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Interp. pixel size (mm2) | 0.83 × 0.83 | 1.25 × 1.25 | 0.83 × 0.83 | 0.63 × 0.63 |
| Acq. pixel size (mm2) | 1.25 × 1.49 | 1.67 × 1.67 | 1.67 × 1.67 | 0.63 × 0.63 |
| Matrix size (read | 128 × 84 | 96 × 84 | 96 × 84 | 256 × 162 |
| Readout time (ms) | 52 | 40 | 138 | 105 |
| Repetition time (ms) | 26.5 | 134 | 362 | 335 |
| TR (ms)/TE (ms) | 3.22/1.41 | 3.6/1.5 | 2.6/1.12 | 4.6 / 2.1 |
| Averages | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Number of TI/mode | N/A | N/A | Pre-contrast: MOLLI-5-3-3 | N/A |
| K-space lines/RR | 8 | 11 | 53 | 23 |
| GRAPPA factor | 2 | N/A | 2 | 2 |
| Partial Fourier | 6/8 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Bandwidth (Hz/Px) | 449 | 801 | 1078 | 287 |
| Spin-locking frequency | N/A | 510 Hz or 0 Hz | N/A | N/A |
| Time of spin-locking (ms) | N/A | 10, 30, 50 | N/A | N/A |
| Scan time (s) | 5.4 | 19 | 7 | 10 |
| Flip angle | 12o | 15o | 35o | 20o |
Cardiac magnetic resonance characteristics
| Healthy control animals ( | Monkeys with Type 2 diabetes and mild diastolic dysfunction ( | Monkeys with type 2 diabetes and moderate diastolic dysfunction ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVEDV (mL) | 16.82 (13.29–23.57) | 18.86 (17.43–20.09) | 22.70 (16.64–27.86) | 0.225 |
| LVEDV/BW (mL/kg) | 1.73 (1.43–2.24) | 1.64 (1.48–1.95) | 1.95 (1.73–2.44) | 0.275 |
| LVESV (mL) | 8.24 (4.15–12.34) | 8.79 (5.83–11.75) | 9.09 (6.15–12.04) | 0.917 |
| LVESV/ BW (mL/kg) | 0.79 (0.44–1.14) | 0.81 (0.52–1.11) | 0.85 (0.56–1.15) | 0.945 |
| Stroke volume (mL) | 9.21 (7.31–12.34) | 9.36 (7.81–11.64) | 13.87 (10.03–18.34) | 0.068 |
| LVEF (%) | 57.06 (44.71–69.42) | 53.39 (42.88–66.91) | 61.14 (55.85–66.43) | 0.526 |
| LV mass S (g) | 19.78 (16.77–22.80) | 21.97 (19.31–24.57) | 23.35 (17.36–29.34) | 0.375 |
| LV mass D (g) | 16.24 (14.41–18.07) | 20.21 (16.91–23.53) | 21.41 (14.33–28.50) | 0.115 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 99.01 (77.79–120.24) | 97.02 (82.58–111.48) | 103.04 (89.60–116.49) | 0.774 |
| Global myocardial T1ρ (ms) | 32.71 (28.92–36.50) | 38.06 (34.60–41.53)‡ | 40.06 (37.05–43.06)‡ | 0.006 |
| Global mFI | 2.90 (1.82–4.00) | 4.91 (3.30–6.51)‡ | 7.74 (5.84–9.65)‡† | 0.000 |
| Global pre-contrast myocardial T1 time (ms) | 1175.16 (1135.67–1214.66) | 1179.53 (1138.72–1220.36) | 1199.47 (1172.44–1248.73) | 0.580 |
| Global post-contrast myocardial T1 time (ms) | 664.79 (486.01–788.91) | 669.14 (413.33–685.59) | 658.69 (534.92–701.63) | 0.461 |
| Global ECV (%) | 24.61 (22.96–25.88) | 26.34 (25.39–26.97) | 29.02 (27.46–34.48)‡† | 0.000 |
| HCT (%) | 43.00 (41.10–45.80) | 42.30 (40.35–44.85) | 43.70 (38.05–45.00) | 0.505 |
| Global myocardial T2 (ms) | 35.83 (31.12–40.54) | 42.22 (36.56–47.88) | 39.50 (33.42–45.58) | 0.187 |
| GSrL (1/s) | 1.28 (1.05–1.53) | 0.74 (0.66–1.21) | 0.72 (0.58–0.95)‡ | 0.015 |
| GSL (%) | − 12.99 (− 13.89 to − 10.40) | − 10.34 (− 10.82 to − 5.92) | −9.43 (− 11.06 to – 4.58) | 0.094 |
Values are given as mean (95% CI) or median (Q1–Q3)
p value was the results of one-way analysis of variance (for normally distributed date) or Kruskal-Wallis H test (for non-normally distributed date). BW, body weight; CI, confidence interval; ECV, extracellular volume fraction; GSL, global peak systolic longitudinal strain; GSrL, global peak diastolic longitudinal strain rate; HCT, hematocrit; LV, left ventricular; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; mFI, myocardial fibrosis index; Q, quartile
*Compared between three groups
‡p < 0.05 compared with group 1 (according to the results of Fisher’s least significant difference test and Student-Newman-Keuls test or Dunn-Bonferroni test for post hoc analysis)
†p < 0.05 compared with group 2 (according to the results of Fisher’s least significant difference test and Student-Newman-Keuls test or Dunn-Bonferroni test for post hoc analysis)
Fig. 1Results for animals with different degrees of diastolic dysfunction as compared with healthy controls. Differences in extracellular volume fraction (a), myocardial fibrosis index (b), T1ρ relaxation time (c), pre-contrast myocardial T1 (d), and post-contrast myocardial T1 (e) are compared between healthy control animals, monkeys with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild diastolic dysfunction, and monkeys with type 2 diabetes mellitus and moderate diastolic dysfunction. Values in panels a–e are shown in box plots. One-way analysis of variance was used for comparing the differences among the three groups (this method was used for normally distributed data, including T1ρ, mFI, and pre-T1). For post hoc analysis, Fisher’s least significant difference test and the Student-Newman-Keuls test were used to compare the differences between every two groups. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the differences among the three groups (this method was used for non-normally distributed data, including ECV and post-T1). The Dunn-Bonferroni test was used in post hoc analysis to compare the differences between every two groups. *p < 0.05
Fig. 2Imaging examples of animals with different degrees of diastolic dysfunction and healthy control animals. The first row displays the echocardiographic mitral valve inflow (A1, B1, C1–1) and the septal mitral valve annular velocities (A1, B1, C1–2). The second row shows the T1ρ maps (A2, B2, C2–1) and the corresponding bull’s-eye plots (A2, B2, C2–2). The third row shows mFI maps (A3, B3, C3–1) and the corresponding bull’s-eye plots (A3, B3, C3–2). The fourth row shows the extracellular volume fraction maps (A4, B4, C4–1) and the corresponding bull’s-eye plots (A4, B4, C4–2). Differences in fibrosis content among the three groups of monkeys were clearly indicated by three fibrosis imaging markers with different image contrasts
Fig. 3Correlation between extracellular volume fraction and the myocardial fibrosis index. A positive correlation was observed between the T1 mapping-derived extracellular volume fraction and the T1ρ mapping-derived myocardial fibrosis index
Correlation between cardiac magnetic resonance derived diffuse myocardial fibrosis markers and myocardial function
| Variable | mFI | T1 ρ | ECV | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSrL (1/s) | − 0.421 | 0.029 | − 0.377 | 0.053 | − 0.607 | 0.001 |
| GSL (%) | 0.243 | 0.222 | 0.297 | 0.132 | 0.434 | 0.024 |
| E (cm/s) | 0.167 | 0.404 | − 0.111 | 0.580 | 0.060 | 0.768 |
| E/A | − 0.213 | 0.285 | − 0.207 | 0.300 | − 0.099 | 0.623 |
| E’ (cm/s) | − 0.465 | 0.014 | − 0.549 | 0.003 | − 0.715 | 0.000 |
| E’/A’ | − 0.470 | 0.013 | − 0.570 | 0.002 | − 0.660 | 0.000 |
| E/E’ | 0.352 | 0.072 | 0.303 | 0.125 | 0.528 | 0.005 |
p value was the results of Pearson method (for normally distributed date) or Spearman method (for non-normally distributed date). A, transmitral late diastolic filling velocity; A’, late diastolic mitral annulus velocity; E, transmitral early diastolic filling velocity; E’, early diastolic mitral annulus velocity; GSL, global peak systolic longitudinal strain; GSrL, global peak diastolic longitudinal strain rate
Fig. 4Correlation between imaging markers of diffuse myocardial fibrosis and diastolic function. a A negative correlation was observed between E’ and the myocardial fibrosis index. b A negative correlation was observed between E’ and the extracellular volume fraction. c A negative correlation was found between the peak diastolic longitudinal strain rate and the myocardial fibrosis index. d A negative correlation was found between the peak diastolic longitudinal strain rate and the extracellular volume fraction
Fig. 5Masson staining and corresponding cardiac magnetic resonance images from one monkey with moderate diastolic dysfunction. Masson staining is shown under high-power magnification (× 100). (a) Collagen fibers were stained with aniline blue, and cardiomyocytes were stained red. The blue rectangles in the T1ρ map (b), the myocardial fibrosis index map (c), and the extracellular volume fraction map (d) indicate the approximate areas form which the histopathological slides were taken. The values in each map indicate the mean T1ρ, myocardial fibrosis index, and extracellular volume fraction values measured in the blue rectangles