OBJECTIVE: We describe left ventricular (LV) volumes, myocardial and trabeculated muscle mass and strains with Cardiac magnetic resonance of a large cohort (n=81) who fulfilled the morphologic criteria of left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) and had good ejection fraction (EF >55%) and compare them with healthy controls (n=81). Male and female patients were compared to matched controls and to each other. We also investigated the LV trabeculated muscle mass cutoff in male and female patients with LVNC. METHODS: 81 participants with LVNC and 81 healthy controls were included. Male and female patients were compared to matched controls and to each other. We also investigated the left ventricular trabeculated muscle mass cut-off in male and female LVNC patients. RESULTS: The LV parameters of the LVNC population were normal, but they had significantly higher volumes, myocardial and trabeculated muscle mass, and a significantly smaller EF than the controls. Similar differences were observed after stratifying by sex. The optimal LV trabeculated muscle mass cutoffs were 25.8 g/m2 in men (area under the curve: 0.81) and 19.0 g/m2 in women (area under the curve: 0.87). The patients had normal global strains but a significantly worse global circumferential strain (patients vs controls: -29.9±4.9 vs. -35.8±4.7%, p<0.05) and significantly higher circumferential mechanical dispersion than the controls (patients vs. controls: 7.6±4.2 vs. 6.1±2.8%; p<0.05). No disease-related strain differences were noted between men and women. CONCLUSION: The LV functional and strain characteristics of the LVNC cohort differed significantly from those of healthy participants; this might be caused by increased LV trabeculation, and its clinical relevance might be questionable. The LV trabeculated muscle mass was very different between men and women; thus, the use of sex-specific morphologic diagnostic criteria should be considered.
OBJECTIVE: We describe left ventricular (LV) volumes, myocardial and trabeculated muscle mass and strains with Cardiac magnetic resonance of a large cohort (n=81) who fulfilled the morphologic criteria of left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) and had good ejection fraction (EF >55%) and compare them with healthy controls (n=81). Male and female patients were compared to matched controls and to each other. We also investigated the LV trabeculated muscle mass cutoff in male and female patients with LVNC. METHODS: 81 participants with LVNC and 81 healthy controls were included. Male and female patients were compared to matched controls and to each other. We also investigated the left ventricular trabeculated muscle mass cut-off in male and female LVNC patients. RESULTS: The LV parameters of the LVNC population were normal, but they had significantly higher volumes, myocardial and trabeculated muscle mass, and a significantly smaller EF than the controls. Similar differences were observed after stratifying by sex. The optimal LV trabeculated muscle mass cutoffs were 25.8 g/m2 in men (area under the curve: 0.81) and 19.0 g/m2 in women (area under the curve: 0.87). The patients had normal global strains but a significantly worse global circumferential strain (patients vs controls: -29.9±4.9 vs. -35.8±4.7%, p<0.05) and significantly higher circumferential mechanical dispersion than the controls (patients vs. controls: 7.6±4.2 vs. 6.1±2.8%; p<0.05). No disease-related strain differences were noted between men and women. CONCLUSION: The LV functional and strain characteristics of the LVNC cohort differed significantly from those of healthy participants; this might be caused by increased LV trabeculation, and its clinical relevance might be questionable. The LV trabeculated muscle mass was very different between men and women; thus, the use of sex-specific morphologic diagnostic criteria should be considered.
Authors: Khaled Alfakih; Sven Plein; Holger Thiele; Tim Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sivananthan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kady Fischer; Sarah J Obrist; Sophie A Erne; Anselm W Stark; Maximilian Marggraf; Kyoichi Kaneko; Dominik P Guensch; Adrian T Huber; Simon Greulich; Ayaz Aghayev; Michael Steigner; Ron Blankstein; Raymond Y Kwong; Christoph Gräni Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-07-15
Authors: Francesco Negri; Antonio De Luca; Enrico Fabris; Renata Korcova; Carlo Cernetti; Chrysanthos Grigoratos; Giovanni Donato Aquaro; Gaetano Nucifora; Paolo G Camici; Gianfranco Sinagra Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Myrthe E Menting; Jackie S McGhie; Laurens P Koopman; Wim B Vletter; Willem A Helbing; Annemien E van den Bosch; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Alexander Ivanov; Devindra S Dabiesingh; Geetha P Bhumireddy; Ambreen Mohamed; Ahmed Asfour; William M Briggs; Jean Ho; Saadat A Khan; Alexandra Grossman; Igor Klem; Terrence J Sacchi; John F Heitner Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jiashen Cai; Jennifer Ann Bryant; Thu-Thao Le; Boyang Su; Antonio de Marvao; Declan P O'Regan; Stuart A Cook; Calvin Woon-Loong Chin Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Anna Reka Kiss; Zsófia Gregor; Adam Furak; Attila Tóth; Márton Horváth; Liliana Szabo; Csilla Czimbalmos; Zsofia Dohy; Bela Merkely; Hajnalka Vago; Andrea Szucs Journal: Anatol J Cardiol Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 1.475