| Literature DB >> 35782296 |
Seyed Amir Mirmojarabian1, Eveliina Lammentausta2, Esa Liukkonen2, Lauri Ahvenjärvi2, Juhani Junttila3, Miika T Nieminen1,2, Timo Liimatainen1,2.
Abstract
Background: Previous research has shown impaired global longitudinal strain (GLS) and slightly elevated extracellular volume fraction (ECV) in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (HTN LVH). Up to now, only little attention has been paid to interactions between macromolecules and free water in hypertrophied myocardium. Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of relaxation along a fictitious field with rank 2 (RAFF2) in HTN LVH patients. Study Type. Single institutional case control. Subjects: 9 HTN LVH (age, 69 ± 10 years) and 11 control subjects (age, 54 ± 12 years). Field Strength/Sequence. Relaxation time mapping (T 1, T 1ρ , and T RAFF2 with 11.8 μT maximum radio frequency field amplitude) was performed at 1.5 T using a Siemens Aera (Erlangen, Germany) scanner equipped with an 18-channel body array coil. Assessment. ECV was calculated using pre- and postcontrast T 1, and global strains parameters were assessed by Segment CMR (Medviso AB Co, Sweden). The parametric maps of T 1ρ and T RAFF2 were computed using a monoexponential model, while the Bloch-McConnell equations were solved numerically to model effect of the chemical exchange during radio frequency pulses. Statistical Tests. Parametric maps were averaged over myocardium for each subject to be used in statistical analysis. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was used as the normality test followed by Student's t-test and Pearson's correlation to determine the difference between the HTN LVH patients and controls along with Hedges' g effect size and the association between variables, respectively.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35782296 PMCID: PMC9246602 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9198691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biomed Imaging ISSN: 1687-4188
Figure 1Late gadolinium enhanced image LGE (a), extra cellular volume map ECV (b), RAFF2 relaxation time TRAFF2 (c), and segmental longitudinal strain (d) showing one case of HTN LVH patients and one from control group using 17-Segment Model (AHA).
Figure 2Detected myocardium on cine images using Segment CMR: short-axis and long-axis views. Strain curves are bellow corresponding views.
Figure 3Segment-wise, segments 7–12, (s7-s12), characteristics of HTN LVH patients, and control group given as error bars of (Student's t-test) RAFF2 relaxation time (a), ECV (b), and TRAFF2 Bloch-McConnell simulation (c).
Characteristics of HTN LVH patients and control group given as mean ± SD and global values (Student's t-test).
| HTN LVH ( | Control ( |
| Hedges' | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 975 ± 43 | 948 ± 43 | ns | — |
| ECV (%) | 26 ± 3 | 25 ± 2 | ns | — |
|
| 60 ± 4 | 62 ± 7 | ns | — |
|
| 83 ± 2 | 88 ± 6 | 0.031 | 1.02 |
| GCS | −17 ± 2 | −19 ± 3 | ns | — |
| GCS US rate | 77 ± 19 | 93 ± 26 | ns | — |
| GCS DS rate | −94 ± 14 | −103 ± 16 | ns | — |
| GRS | 41 ± 7 | 54 ± 6 | 0.001 | 1.92 |
| GRS US rate | 217 ± 52 | 249 ± 47 | ns | — |
| GRS DS rate | −209 ± 58 | −305 ± 99 | 0.021 | 1.10 |
| GLS | −14 ± 3 | −18 ± 2 | 0.002 | 1.53 |
| GLS US rate | 56 ± 9 | 74 ± 18 | 0.016 | 1.17 |
| GLS DS rate | −69 ± 15 | −85 ± 11 | 0.013 | 1.18 |
| LVEF (%) | 55 ± 7 | 64 ± 6 | 0.012 | 1.33 |
| LVED Vol (ml) | 141 ± 47 | 129 ± 26 | ns | — |
| LVED mass (g) | 162 ± 29 | 112 ± 36 | 0.004 | 1.44 |
| LVED-WT (mm) | 17 ± 2 | 10 ± 2 | 0.001 | 3.35 |
Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between TRAFF2, ECV, and strain parameters and global values (∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01).
|
| GCS | GRS | GLS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| -0.19 | -0.20 | 0.09 | 0.32 |
| ECV | 0.19 | 0.17 | -0.26 | 0.06 |
|
| 0.38 | -0.05 | 0.29 | -0.10 |
|
| 1 | -0.23 | 0.47∗ | -0.53∗ |
| GCS | -0.23 | 1 | -0.62∗∗ | 0.58∗∗ |
| GCS US rate | 0.23 | -0.60∗∗ | 0.63∗∗ | -0.43 |
| GCS DS rate | -0.33 | 0.57∗∗ | -0.56∗∗ | 0.21 |
| GRS | 0.47∗ | -0.62∗∗ | 1 | -0.56∗ |
| GRS US rate | 0.15 | -0.18 | 0.65∗∗ | -0.01 |
| GRS DS rate | -0.46∗ | 0.41 | -0.76∗∗ | 0.52∗ |
| GLS | -0.53∗ | 0.58∗∗ | -0.56∗ | 1 |
| GLS US rate | 0.33 | -0.38 | 0.44 | -0.62∗∗ |
| GLS DS rate | -0.44 | 0.58∗∗ | -0.62∗∗ | 0.78∗∗ |
| LVEF (%) | 0.21 | -0.76∗∗ | 0.73∗∗ | -0.49∗ |
| LVED Vol (ml) | -0.08 | 0.26 | -0.55∗ | 0.031 |
| LVED mass (g) | -0.61∗∗ | 0.16 | -0.67∗∗ | 0.61∗∗ |
| LVED-WT (mm) | -0.56∗∗ | 0.22 | -0.56∗ | 0.67∗∗ |
Figure 4Pearson correlation (r), RAFF2 relaxation time (ms) associated with LVED-WT (mm), LVED mass (g), and GLS (%). Generalized linear model fits of the data with 95% confidence bounds.