| Literature DB >> 31303178 |
Charlotte de Lange1,2, Marjolein J E Reichert1, Joseph J Pagano3, Mike Seed1,4, Shi-Joon Yoo1,4, Craig S Broberg5, Christopher Z Lam4, Lars Grosse-Wortmann6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with single ventricle physiology are at increased risk for developing liver fibrosis. Its extent and prevalence in children with bidirectional cavopulmonary connection (BCPC) and Fontan circulation are unclear. Extracellular volume fraction (ECV), derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and T1 relaxometry, reflect fibrotic remodeling and/or congestion in the liver. The aim of this study was to investigate whether pediatric patients with single ventricle physiology experience increased native T1 and ECV as markers of liver fibrosis/congestion.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Fontan circulation; Liver cirrhosis; Single ventricle; T1 mapping
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31303178 PMCID: PMC6628496 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-019-0545-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Hepatic Native T1. Native T1 source image in short-axis orientation demonstrating the heart and upper part of the abdomen. Regions of interest (ROIs) depict liver regions near diaphragm (#1, orange), central (#2, pink) and caudal (#3, yellow). The red ROI samples signal in the blood pool of a liver vein and the white ROI (#5) in the ventricular cavity. Stomach (st)
Patient demographics, surgical and catheterization results, presented as mean values and standard deviations, with ranges in brackets as appropriate
| Control | BCPC | Fontan | SLV Fontan | SRV Fontan | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| age at CMR (years) | 13.7 ± 2.9 (7.4–17.7) | 2.8 ± 0.9 (0.6–4.5) | 11.4 ± 4.4 (3.6–17.8) |
|
|
| 12.2 ± 4.2 | 11.4 ± 4.2 | 0.3 |
| gender, male n (%) | 18 (41%) | 13 (65%) | 36 (58%) | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.4 | 21 (61%) | 11 (52%) | 0.8 |
| weight (kg) | 59.9 ± 23.3 | 13.3 ± 2.8 | 37.1 ± 17.6 |
|
|
| 41.5 ± 18.5 | 36.3 ± 15.1 | 0.2 |
| BSA (m2) | 1.6 ± 0.38 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.38 |
|
|
| 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.5 |
| systolic BP (percentile) | – | 85.8 ± 23.1 | 60.7 ± 29.3 | – | – |
| 58.8 ± 30.2 | 60.6 ± 28.5 | 0.8 |
| diastolic BP (percentile) | – | 81.7 ± 17.8 | 49.2 ± 28.4 | – | – |
| 50.3 ± 29.3 | 41.9 ± 23.9 | 0.2 |
| O2 saturation (%) | – | 84 ± 5 | 93 ± 5 | – | – |
| 94 ± 5 | 93 ± 5 | 0.6 |
|
| |||||||||
| age at BCPC (years) | – | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.4 | – |
| 0.3 | – | – | |
| age at Fontan (years) | – | – | 3.3 ± 0.9 | – |
|
| 3.2 ± 0.8 | 3.5 ± 1.1 | 0.2 |
| interval MR BCPC/ Fontan op (days) | – | 3895 ± 658 | 2888 ± 1684 | – |
|
| 3296 ± 1619 | 2856 ± 1628 | 0.3 |
| total CPBT (minutes) | – | 154 ± 98 | 252 ± 108 | – | – |
| 209 ± 107 | 310 ± 75 |
|
| total CAT (minutes) | – | 26 ± 9 | 16 ± 15 | – | – | 0.08 | 20.5 ± 23 | 16 ± 14 | 0.7 |
| total CCT (minutes) | – | 62 ± 56 | 82 ± 64 | – | – | 0.2 | 60 ± 66 | 97 ± 42 |
|
|
| |||||||||
| interval MR to catheterization (days) | – | 86 ± 183 | 1719 ± 183 | – | – |
| 2096 ± 1898 | 1675 ± 726 | 0.4 |
| age at catheterization (years) | – | 2.6 ± 1.2 | 6.7 ± 4.2 | – | – | 6.8 ± 4.7 | 6.9 ± 3.9 | 0.9 | |
| VEDP (mmHg) | – | 7.7 ± 2.1 | 7.2 ± 2.3 | – | – | 0.6 | 8.3 ± 2.3 | 6.3 ± 2.6 | 0.2 |
| CVP (mmHg) | – | 10.7 ± 3.1 | 10.9 ± 0.8 | – | – | 0.6 | 10.3 ± 1.5 | 10.6 ± 1.7 | 0.6 |
| atrial pressure (mmHg) | – | 4.9 ± 2.1 | 5.3 ± 2.1 | – | – | 0.6 | 6.2 ± 2.3 | 5.4 ± 1.1 | 0.5 |
*One way Analysis of variance tested for multiple comparisons with post-hoc Tukey
BCPC bidirectional cavo-pulmonary connection, BSA body surface area, BP blood pressure, CAT circulatory arrest time, CPBT cardiopulmonary bypass time; CCT cross-clamp time, CMR cardiovascular magnetic resonance, CVP central venous pressure, SLV single left ventricle; SRV single right ventricle, VEDP ventricular end-diastolic pressure
Fig. 2Boxplot of native T1 values. Boxplot of native T1 values in the Fontan, bidirectional cavopulmonary connection (BCPC) and control groups
T1 relaxometry, ventricular volumetry, blood flow volumes
| Control | BCPC | Fontan | SLV Fontan. | SRV Fontan | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VEDVi (mL/m2) | 93 ± 13 | 135 ± 30 | 127 ± 41 |
|
| 0.4* | 119 ± 35 | 144 ± 49 |
|
| VESVi (mL/m2) | 39 ± 7 | 76 ± 22 | 72 ± 31 |
|
| 0.5* | 64 ± 22 | 88 ± 40 |
|
| VSVi (mL/m2) | 54 ± 8.9 | 59.1 ± 14.3 | 55.4 ± 16.3 | 0.2* | 0.6* | 0.3* | 55.7 ± 19.0 | 56.3 ± 12.3 | 0.9 |
| Vmass (g/m2) | 55 ± 12 | 59 ± 15 | 57 ± 9 | 0.3* | 0.5* | 0.4* | 59 ± 10 | 53 ± 10 |
|
| VEF (%) | 58 ± 5 | 44 ± 7 | 45 ± 8 |
|
| 0.7* | 47 ± 8 | 40 ± 8 |
|
| Vmass / VEDV (g/mL) | – | 78 ± 19 | 71 ± 21 | – | – | 0.1 | 70 ± 20 | 76 ± 25 | 0.3 |
| AAO (L/min/m2) | – | 4.2 ± 1.4 | 3.3 ± 0.7 | – | – |
| 3.2 ± 0.6 | 3.4 ± 0.9 | 0.4 |
| APC (L/min/m2) | – | 1.2 ± 0.7 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | – | – |
| 0.6 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 0.7 |
| Qp/Qs | – | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | – | – | 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 0.5 |
| Hepatic native T1 (ms) | 604 ± 54 | 645 ± 43 | 762 ± 64 |
|
|
| 748 ± 51 | 780 ± 78 | 0.07 |
| Hepatic ECV (%) | – | 36.4 ± 4.8 | 41.4 ± 4.8 |
| 40.2 ± 4.2 | 43.1 ± 4.7 | 0.1 |
*One way Analysis of variance tested for multiple comparisons with post-hoc Tukey
AAO ascending aortic flow, APC aorto-pulmonary collateral flow, BCPC bidirectional cavopulmonary connection, DAO descending aorta, ECV extracellular volume fraction, Qp pulmonary (venous) blood flow, Qs systemic blood flow, SLV single left ventricle, SRV single right ventricle SVC superior vena cava, VEDVi indexed ventricular end diastolic volume, VEF ventricular ejection fraction, VESVi indexed ventricular end systolic volume, Vmassi indexed ventricular mass, VSVi indexed ventricular stroke volume
Fig. 3Reproducibility of T1 and ECV. Bland Altman plots for intra and inter observer agreement for measurements of native T1 (upper row) and Extracellular volume fraction (ECV, lower row) for the average of ROIs 1–3