Lukas Opatril1,2,3, Roman Panovsky4,5,6,7, Jan Machal2,8, Tomas Holecek2,9, Lucia Masarova1,2,3, Vera Feitova2,9, Vladimir Kincl1,2,3, Marek Hodejovsky3, Lenka Spinarova1,3. 1. 1st Department of Internal Medicine and Cardioangiology, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. 2. International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 4. 1st Department of Internal Medicine and Cardioangiology, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. panovsky@fnusa.cz. 5. International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. panovsky@fnusa.cz. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. panovsky@fnusa.cz. 7. 1st Department of Internal Medicine and Cardioangiology, International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. panovsky@fnusa.cz. 8. Department of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 9. Department of Medical Imaging, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In terms of cardiovascular magnetic resonance are haematocrit values required for calculation of extracellular volume fraction (ECV). Previously published studies have hypothesized that haematocrit could be calculated from T1 blood pool relaxation time, however only native T1 relaxation time values have been used and the resulting formulae had been both in reciprocal and linear proportion. The aim of the study was to generate a synthetic haematocrit formula from only native relaxation time values first, calculate whether linear or reciprocal model is more precise in haematocrit estimation and then determine whether adding post-contrast values further improve its precision. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine subjects underwent CMR examination. Haematocrit was measured using standard laboratory methods. Afterwards T1 relaxation times before and after the application of a contrast agent were measured and a statistical relationship between these values was calculated. RESULTS: Different linear and reciprocal models were created to estimate the value of synthetic haematocrit and ECV. The highest coefficient of determination was observed in the combined reciprocal model "- 0.047 + (779/ blood native) - (11.36/ blood post-contrast)". CONCLUSIONS: This study provides more evidence that assessing synthetic haematocrit and synthetic ECV is feasible and statistically most accurate model to use is reciprocal. Adding post-contrast values to the calculation was proved to improve the precision of the formula statistically significantly.
BACKGROUND: In terms of cardiovascular magnetic resonance are haematocrit values required for calculation of extracellular volume fraction (ECV). Previously published studies have hypothesized that haematocrit could be calculated from T1 blood pool relaxation time, however only native T1 relaxation time values have been used and the resulting formulae had been both in reciprocal and linear proportion. The aim of the study was to generate a synthetic haematocrit formula from only native relaxation time values first, calculate whether linear or reciprocal model is more precise in haematocrit estimation and then determine whether adding post-contrast values further improve its precision. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine subjects underwent CMR examination. Haematocrit was measured using standard laboratory methods. Afterwards T1 relaxation times before and after the application of a contrast agent were measured and a statistical relationship between these values was calculated. RESULTS: Different linear and reciprocal models were created to estimate the value of synthetic haematocrit and ECV. The highest coefficient of determination was observed in the combined reciprocal model "- 0.047 + (779/ blood native) - (11.36/ blood post-contrast)". CONCLUSIONS: This study provides more evidence that assessing synthetic haematocrit and synthetic ECV is feasible and statistically most accurate model to use is reciprocal. Adding post-contrast values to the calculation was proved to improve the precision of the formula statistically significantly.
Authors: Martin Ugander; Abiola J Oki; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Andreas Greiser; Anthony H Aletras; Christopher T Sibley; Marcus Y Chen; W Patricia Bandettini; Andrew E Arai Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daniel M Sado; Andrew S Flett; Sanjay M Banypersad; Steven K White; Viviana Maestrini; Giovanni Quarta; Robin H Lachmann; Elaine Murphy; Atul Mehta; Derralynn A Hughes; William J McKenna; Andrew M Taylor; Derek J Hausenloy; Philip N Hawkins; Perry M Elliott; James C Moon Journal: Heart Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Timothy C Wong; Kayla M Piehler; Ian A Kang; Ajay Kadakkal; Peter Kellman; David S Schwartzman; Suresh R Mulukutla; Marc A Simon; Sanjeev G Shroff; Lewis H Kuller; Erik B Schelbert Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Timothy C Wong; Kayla Piehler; Christopher G Meier; Stephen M Testa; Amanda M Klock; Ali A Aneizi; Jonathan Shakesprere; Peter Kellman; Sanjeev G Shroff; David S Schwartzman; Suresh R Mulukutla; Marc A Simon; Erik B Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jonathan H Soslow; Bruce M Damon; Benjamin R Saville; Zengqi Lu; W Bryan Burnette; Mark A Lawson; David A Parra; Douglas B Sawyer; Larry W Markham Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: James C Moon; Daniel R Messroghli; Peter Kellman; Stefan K Piechnik; Matthew D Robson; Martin Ugander; Peter D Gatehouse; Andrew E Arai; Matthias G Friedrich; Stefan Neubauer; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Erik B Schelbert Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Stefan K Piechnik; Vanessa M Ferreira; Adam J Lewandowski; Ntobeko A B Ntusi; Rajarshi Banerjee; Cameron Holloway; Mark B M Hofman; Daniel M Sado; Viviana Maestrini; Steven K White; Merzaka Lazdam; Theodoros Karamitsos; James C Moon; Stefan Neubauer; Paul Leeson; Matthew D Robson Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-01-20 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Frank J Raucci; David A Parra; Jason T Christensen; Lazaro E Hernandez; Larry W Markham; Meng Xu; James C Slaughter; Jonathan H Soslow Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Andreas A Kammerlander; Franz Duca; Christina Binder; Stefan Aschauer; Caroline Zotter-Tufaro; Matthias Koschutnik; Beatrice A Marzluf; Diana Bonderman; Julia Mascherbauer Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 1.704