Henning Steen1, Sorin Giusca2, Moritz Montenbruck1, Amit R Patel3, Burkert Pieske4,5, Andre Florian6,7, Jennifer Erley4,5, Sebastian Kelle4,5, Grigorios Korosoglou8. 1. Department of Cardiology, Marien Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Departments of Cardiology, Vascular Medicine and Pneumology, GRN Academic Teaching Hospital Weinheim, Roentgenstrasse 1, 69469, Weinheim, Germany. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, German Heart Center Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 6. Departments of Cardiology, Angiology and Pneumology, Heidelberg University, Berlin, Germany. 7. DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Berlin, Germany. 8. Departments of Cardiology, Vascular Medicine and Pneumology, GRN Academic Teaching Hospital Weinheim, Roentgenstrasse 1, 69469, Weinheim, Germany. gkorosoglou@hotmail.com.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the ability of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) strain measured by fast-strain encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) (fast-SENC) with LV- and RV-ejection fraction for the diagnostic classification of patients with different stages of chronic heart failure (stages A-D based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) due to non-ischemic cardiomyopathies. METHODS: Our study population consisted of 276 consecutive patients who underwent CMR for clinical reasons, and 19 healthy subjects. Wall motion score index and non-infarct related late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) and global LV- and RV-longitudinal (GLS) and circumferential strain (GCS) based on fast-SENC acquisitions, were calculated in all subjects. The percentage of LV and RV myocardial segments with strain ≤ - 17% (%normal LV and RV myocardium) was determined in all subjects. RESULTS: LVEF and RVEF, LV-GLS, LV-GCS, RV-GLS, RV-GCS and %normal LV- and RV myocardium depressed with increasing heart failure stage (p < 0.001 for all by ANOVA). By multivariable analysis, %normal LV and RV myocardium exhibited closer associations to heart failure stages than LVEF and RVEF (rpartial = 0.79 versus rpartial = 0.21 for %normal LV myocardium versus LVEF and rpartial = 0.64 versus rpartial = 0.20 for %normal RV myocardium versus RVEF, respectively). Furthermore, %normal LV and RV myocardium exhibited incremental value for the identification of patients (i) with subclinical myocardial dysfunction and (ii) with symptomatic heart failure, surpassing that provided by LVEF and RVEF (ΔAUC = 0.22 for LVEF and ΔAUC = 0.19 for RVEF with subclinical dysfunction, and ΔAUC = 0.19 for LVEF and ΔAUC = 0.22 for RVEF with symptomatic heart failure, respectively, p < 0.001 for all). %normal LV myocardium reclassified 11 of 31 (35%) patients judged as having no structural heart disease by clinical and imaging data to stage B, i.e., subclinical LV-dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, %normal LV and RV myocardium, by fast-SENC, enables improved identification of asymptomatic patients with subclinical LV-dysfunction. This technique may be useful for the early identification of such presumably healthy subjects at risk for heart failure and for monitoring LV and RV deformation during pharmacologic interventions in future studies.
AIMS: To compare the ability of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) strain measured by fast-strain encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) (fast-SENC) with LV- and RV-ejection fraction for the diagnostic classification of patients with different stages of chronic heart failure (stages A-D based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) due to non-ischemic cardiomyopathies. METHODS: Our study population consisted of 276 consecutive patients who underwent CMR for clinical reasons, and 19 healthy subjects. Wall motion score index and non-infarct related late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) and global LV- and RV-longitudinal (GLS) and circumferential strain (GCS) based on fast-SENC acquisitions, were calculated in all subjects. The percentage of LV and RV myocardial segments with strain ≤ - 17% (%normal LV and RV myocardium) was determined in all subjects. RESULTS: LVEF and RVEF, LV-GLS, LV-GCS, RV-GLS, RV-GCS and %normal LV- and RV myocardium depressed with increasing heart failure stage (p < 0.001 for all by ANOVA). By multivariable analysis, %normal LV and RV myocardium exhibited closer associations to heart failure stages than LVEF and RVEF (rpartial = 0.79 versus rpartial = 0.21 for %normal LV myocardium versus LVEF and rpartial = 0.64 versus rpartial = 0.20 for %normal RV myocardium versus RVEF, respectively). Furthermore, %normal LV and RV myocardium exhibited incremental value for the identification of patients (i) with subclinical myocardial dysfunction and (ii) with symptomatic heart failure, surpassing that provided by LVEF and RVEF (ΔAUC = 0.22 for LVEF and ΔAUC = 0.19 for RVEF with subclinical dysfunction, and ΔAUC = 0.19 for LVEF and ΔAUC = 0.22 for RVEF with symptomatic heart failure, respectively, p < 0.001 for all). %normal LV myocardium reclassified 11 of 31 (35%) patients judged as having no structural heart disease by clinical and imaging data to stage B, i.e., subclinical LV-dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, %normal LV and RV myocardium, by fast-SENC, enables improved identification of asymptomatic patients with subclinical LV-dysfunction. This technique may be useful for the early identification of such presumably healthy subjects at risk for heart failure and for monitoring LV and RV deformation during pharmacologic interventions in future studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac magnetic resonance; Fast-strain-encoded MR (fast-SENC); Heart failure; Hypertrophy; Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathies; Late gadolinium enhancement; Myocarditis
Authors: Barry J Maron; Jeffrey A Towbin; Gaetano Thiene; Charles Antzelevitch; Domenico Corrado; Donna Arnett; Arthur J Moss; Christine E Seidman; James B Young Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Martin S Maron; Ethan J Rowin; Iacopo Olivotto; Susan A Casey; Anna Arretini; Benedetta Tomberli; Ross F Garberich; Mark S Link; Raymond H M Chan; John R Lesser; Barry J Maron Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G M Felker; R E Thompson; J M Hare; R H Hruban; D E Clemetson; D L Howard; K L Baughman; E K Kasper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sorin Giusca; Grigorios Korosoglou; Victoria Zieschang; Lukas Stoiber; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Christian Stehning; Rolf Gebker; Burkert Pieske; Andreas Schuster; Sören Backhaus; Elisabeth Pieske-Kraigher; Amit Patel; Keigo Kawaji; Henning Steen; Tomas Lapinskas; Sebastian Kelle Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ankur Gulati; Tevfik F Ismail; Andrew Jabbour; Nizar A Ismail; Kishen Morarji; Aamir Ali; Sadaf Raza; Jahanzaib Khwaja; Tristan D H Brown; Emmanouil Liodakis; Arun J Baksi; Rameen Shakur; Kaushik Guha; Michael Roughton; Ricardo Wage; Stuart A Cook; Francisco Alpendurada; Ravi G Assomull; Raad H Mohiaddin; Martin R Cowie; Dudley J Pennell; Sanjay K Prasad Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Ankur Gulati; Andrew Jabbour; Tevfik F Ismail; Kaushik Guha; Jahanzaib Khwaja; Sadaf Raza; Kishen Morarji; Tristan D H Brown; Nizar A Ismail; Marc R Dweck; Elisa Di Pietro; Michael Roughton; Ricardo Wage; Yousef Daryani; Rory O'Hanlon; Mary N Sheppard; Francisco Alpendurada; Alexander R Lyon; Stuart A Cook; Martin R Cowie; Ravi G Assomull; Dudley J Pennell; Sanjay K Prasad Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272