Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

MRI comparison of quantitative left ventricular structure, function and measurement reproducibility in patient cohorts with a range of clinically distinct cardiac conditions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim Quantitative MRI assessments of cardiac structure and function are possible and potentially useful for longitudinal clinical monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the magnitude and repeatability of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and mass (LVM) measurements in patients with clinically distinct cardiac conditions. Materials and Methods Patients were recruited into four groups: (i) congestive heart failure (CHF), (ii) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), (iii) recent post myocardial infarct (PMI), and (iv) healthy normal volunteers (HNV). LV short-axis images were acquired on a 1.5T MRI scanner and analysed on a satellite workstation. EF and LVM (at ED) values were derived from myocardial segmentations, and intra-observer test-retest coefficients of repeatability (CoR) were determined for each cohort. Results The mean EF for the CHF patients (30.3%) was lower than for the other cohorts (LVH 72.7%, PMI 53.0%, HNV 67.0%; P < 0.0002). As expected, the mean LVM for the CHF patients (143 g) was greater than for the other cohorts (LVH 122 g, PMI 124 g, HNV 107 g), but only significant when compared to the HNV cohort (P = 0.004). The intra-observer CoR values for EF were 1.5% (LVH), 1.6% (HNV), 2.6% (PMI) and 5.5% (CHF), and 4.6 g (HNV), 6.7 g (PMI), 8.3 g (CHF) and 9.8 g (LVH) for LVM. Conclusion The EF, LVM and associated repeatability parameters are variable and dependent upon the clinical condition under investigation. It is important that reproducibility data for EF and LVM are acquired individually and specifically on a per-cohort basis if the parameters are to form reliable endpoints for longitudinal clinical follow-up assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CHF:

Congestive heart failure

CoR:

Coefficient of repeatability

CoV:

Coefficient of variation

ED:

End diastole

EF:

Ejection fraction

ES:

End systole

HNV:

Healthy normal volunteers

LV:

Left ventricle

LVH:

Left ventricular hypertrophy

LVM (ED) :

Left ventricular mass at end diastole

MRI:

MRI

PMI:

Post myocardial infarct

References

  1. Alfakih K, Reid S, Jones T, Sivananthan M (2004) Assessment of ventricular function and mass by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 14(10):1813–1822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Keenan NG, Pennell DJ (2007) CMR of ventricular function. Echocardiography 24(2):185–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Katz J, Milliken MC, Stray-Gundersen J, Buja LM, Parkey RW, Mitchell JH, Peshock RM (1988) Estimation of human myocardial mass with MR imaging. Radiology 169:495–498

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bottini PB, Carr AA, Prisant LM, Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Gottdiener JS (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. J Hypertens 8(3):221–228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellenger NG, Davies LC, Francis JM, Coats AJS, Pennell DJ (2000) Reduction in sample size for studies of remodelling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2(4):271–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Plein S, Smith WHT, Ridgway JP, Kassner A, Beacock DJ, Bloomer TN, Sivanathan MU (2001) Measurement of left ventricular dimensions using real-time acquisition in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with conventional gradient echo imaging. MAGMA 13:101–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. JBS2 (2005) Joint British Societies’ guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart 91:1–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pennell DJ (2002) Ventricular volume and mass by CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 4:507–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miller S, Simonetti OP, Carr J, Kramer U, Finn JP (2002) MR imaging of the heart with cine true fast imaging with steady-state precession: influence of spatial and temporal resolutions on left ventricular functional parameters. Radiology 223:263–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Papavassiliu T, Kuhl HP, Schroder M et al (2005) Effect of endocardial trabeculae on left ventricular measurements and measurement reproducibility at cardiovascular MR imaging1. Radiology 236:57–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Semelka RC, Tomei E, Wagner S et al (1990) Normal left ventricular dimensions and function: interstudy reproducibility of measurements with cine MR imaging. Radiology 174:763–768

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Grothues F, Smith JC, Moon JCC et al (2002) Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol 90:29–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danilouchkine MG, Westenberg JJM, de Roos A, Reiber JHC, Lelieveldt BPF (2005) Operator induced variability in cardiovascular MR: left ventricular measurements and their reproducibility. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 7:447–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cain PA, Ahl R, Hedstrom E et al (2007) Physiological determinants of the variation in left ventricular mass from early adolescence to late adulthood in healthy subjects. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 27(4):254–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marcus JT, De Waal LK, Gotte MJW, Van der Geest RJ, Heethaar RM, Van Rossum AC (1999) MRI-derived left ventricular function parameters and mass in healthy young adults: relation with gender and body size. Int J Card Imaging 15(5):411–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Prof Allan Struthers, Dr Helen Simpson, and Miss Wendy Urquhart, Division of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. Mrs Lynsay Allan, Mrs Elena Crowe, Mrs Baljit Jagpal, Mrs Trudy McLeay, Mrs Wendy Milne, and Mrs Norma Gourlay, Department of Clinical Radiology, NHS Tayside, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Gandy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gandy, S.J., Waugh, S.A., Nicholas, R.S. et al. MRI comparison of quantitative left ventricular structure, function and measurement reproducibility in patient cohorts with a range of clinically distinct cardiac conditions. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24, 627–632 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-008-9293-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-008-9293-5

Keywords

Navigation