Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 103, Issue 6, pp 441–450 | Cite as

Classification of diastolic function with phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: validation with echocardiography and age-related reference values

  • Sebastian J. Buss
  • Birgit Krautz
  • Bernhardt Schnackenburg
  • Hassan Abdel-Aty
  • Maria Fernanda Braggion Santos
  • Florian Andre
  • Malte J. Maertens
  • Derliz Mereles
  • Grigorios Korosoglou
  • Evangelos Giannitsis
  • Hugo A. Katus
  • Henning Steen
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate whether cardiac magnetic resonance phase-contrast imaging (PC-CMR) can determine left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in comparison to echocardiography (EC).

Background

Non-invasive evaluation of diastolic function is important for the diagnostic classification and risk stratification of patients with cardiomyopathies. With EC, diastolic function is classified based on the mitral blood flow, LV myocardial tissue Doppler velocities and pulmonary venous flow. PC-CMR has the potential to measure these parameters and may be an important tool to assess diastolic function in clinical routine.

Methods

In 36 patients with various cardiovascular diseases and 6 healthy volunteers, we performed single-slice short-axis PC-CMR at the level of the mitral leaflet tip and the inflow of the pulmonary veins to generate EC-comparable mitral E and A waves, septal and lateral e′ and a′ tissue velocities, and E/A and E/e′ ratios. EC was performed after PC-CMR in all patients and six volunteers. Patients were classified into three groups of DD for both techniques. In addition, we evaluated 120 healthy volunteers as controls (3 age groups: 1 = 20–35 years; 2 = 36–50 years; 3 ≥ 51 years) for reference values.

Results

PC-CMR correlation with EC regarding the relation of mitral E and A velocities was good (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). The correlation for the mean septal and lateral E/e′ ratio was high with r = 0.90 (p < 0.001). 40/42 subjects (95 %) were categorized correctly. The mean scan time for PC-CMR was 189 ± 16 s and mean analysis time was 348 ± 95 s. EC image acquisition time was slightly higher (201 ± 37 s, p = n.s.), whereas EC image analysis time was significantly lower (149 ± 23 s, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The classification of DD with PC-CMR is feasible and shows good agreement with the widely accepted EC classification of DD. We present a practical approach for the clinically important assessment of DD with PC-CMR, circumventing sophisticated and time-consuming CMR sequences and specially designed software analysis tools.

Keywords

Left ventricular function Diastolic function Echocardiography Cardiac magnetic resonance 

Abbreviations

CMR

Cardiac magnetic resonance

DD

Diastolic dysfunction

EC

Echocardiography

LV

Left ventricle

MBF

Mitral blood flow

PC-CMR

Phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance

PVF

Pulmonary vein flow

PW-TDI

Pulsed-wave time Doppler imaging

References

  1. 1.
    Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Jessup M, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Michl K, Oates JA, Rahko PS, Silver MA, Stevenson LW, Yancy CW (2009) 2009 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 53(15):e1–e90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatia RS, Tu JV, Lee DS, Austin PC, Fang J, Haouzi A, Gong Y, Liu PP (2006) Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study. N Engl J Med 355(3):260–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM (2006) Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 355(3):251–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Achong N, Wahi S, Marwick TH (2009) Evolution and outcome of diastolic dysfunction. Heart 95(10):813–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Persson H, Lonn E, Edner M, Baruch L, Lang CC, Morton JJ, Ostergren J, McKelvie RS (2007) Diastolic dysfunction in heart failure with preserved systolic function: need for objective evidence: results from the CHARM Echocardiographic Substudy—CHARMES. J Am Coll Cardiol 49(6):687–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halley CM, Houghtaling PL, Khalil MK, Thomas JD, Jaber WA (2011) Mortality rate in patients with diastolic dysfunction and normal systolic function. Arch Intern Med 171(12):1082–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karamitsos TD, Francis JM, Myerson S, Selvanayagam JB, Neubauer S (2009) The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(15):1407–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pennell DJ (2010) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation 121(5):692–705. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.811547 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Assomull RG, Shakespeare C, Kalra PR, Lloyd G, Gulati A, Strange J, Bradlow WM, Lyne J, Keegan J, Poole-Wilson P, Cowie MR, Pennell DJ, Prasad SK (2010) Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography in patients presenting with heart failure of unknown etiology. Circulation 124(12):1351–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulus WJ, Tschope C, Sanderson JE, Rusconi C, Flachskampf FA, Rademakers FE, Marino P, Smiseth OA, De Keulenaer G, Leite-Moreira AF, Borbely A, Edes I, Handoko ML, Heymans S, Pezzali N, Pieske B, Dickstein K, Fraser AG, Brutsaert DL (2007) How to diagnose diastolic heart failure: a consensus statement on the diagnosis of heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction by the Heart Failure and Echocardiography Associations of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 28(20):2539–2550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bess RL, Khan S, Rosman HS, Cohen GI, Allebban Z, Gardin JM (2006) Technical aspects of diastology: why mitral inflow and tissue Doppler imaging are the preferred parameters? Echocardiography 23(4):332–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mi YP, Abdul-Khaliq H (2013) The pulsed Doppler and tissue Doppler-derived septal E/e’ ratio is significantly related to invasive measurement of ventricular end-diastolic pressure in biventricular rather than univentricular physiology in patients with congenital heart disease. Clin Res Cardiol 102(8):563–570. doi:10.1007/s00392-013-0567-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buss SJ, Mereles D, Emami M, Korosoglou G, Riffel JH, Bertel D, Schonland SO, Hegenbart U, Katus HA, Hardt SE (2012) Rapid assessment of longitudinal systolic left ventricular function using speckle tracking of the mitral annulus. Clin Res Cardiol 101(4):273–280. doi:10.1007/s00392-011-0389-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer-Rasokat U, Honold J, Seeger FH, Fichtlscherer S, Schachinger V, Dimmeler S, Zeiher AM, Assmus B (2012) Early remodeling processes as predictors of diastolic function 5 years after reperfused acute myocardial infarction and intracoronary progenitor cell application. Clin Res Cardiol 101(3):209–216. doi:10.1007/s00392-011-0382-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuster A, Ishida M, Morton G, Bigalke B, Moonim MT, Nagel E (2012) Value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in myocardial hypertrophy. Clin Res Cardiol 101(3):237–238. doi:10.1007/s00392-011-0401-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li C, Lossnitzer D, Katus HA, Buss SJ (2012) Comparison of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by monoplane cineventriculography, unenhanced echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28(5):1003–1010. doi:10.1007/s10554-011-9924-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paelinck BP, de Roos A, Bax JJ, Bosmans JM, van Der Geest RJ, Dhondt D, Parizel PM, Vrints CJ, Lamb HJ (2005) Feasibility of tissue magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study in comparison with tissue Doppler imaging and invasive measurement. J Am Coll Cardiol 45(7):1109–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bollache E, Redheuil A, Clement-Guinaudeau S, Defrance C, Perdrix L, Ladouceur M, Lefort M, De Cesare A, Herment A, Diebold B, Mousseaux E, Kachenoura N (2010) Automated left ventricular diastolic function evaluation from phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance and comparison with Doppler echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 12:63PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rathi VK, Doyle M, Yamrozik J, Williams RB, Caruppannan K, Truman C, Vido D, Biederman RW (2008) Routine evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a practical approach. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 10:36PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gelfand EV, Hughes S, Hauser TH, Yeon SB, Goepfert L, Kissinger KV, Rofsky NM, Manning WJ (2006) Severity of mitral and aortic regurgitation as assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: optimizing correlation with Doppler echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 8(3):503–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Pellikka PA, Picard MH, Roman MJ, Seward J, Shanewise JS, Solomon SD, Spencer KT, Sutton MS, Stewart WJ (2005) Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 18(12):1440–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagueh SF, Appleton CP, Gillebert TC, Marino PN, Oh JK, Smiseth OA, Waggoner AD, Flachskampf FA, Pellikka PA, Evangelista A (2009) Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 22(2):107–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khouri SJ, Maly GT, Suh DD, Walsh TE (2004) A practical approach to the echocardiographic evaluation of diastolic function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 17(3):290–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nishimura RA, Tajik AJ (1997) Evaluation of diastolic filling of left ventricle in health and disease: Doppler echocardiography is the clinician’s Rosetta Stone. J Am Coll Cardiol 30(1):8–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bursi F, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Pakhomov S, Nkomo VT, Meverden RA, Roger VL (2006) Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community. JAMA 296(18):2209–2216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ommen SR, Nishimura RA, Appleton CP, Miller FA, Oh JK, Redfield MM, Tajik AJ (2000) Clinical utility of Doppler echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging in the estimation of left ventricular filling pressures: a comparative simultaneous Doppler-catheterization study. Circulation 102(15):1788–1794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hundley WG, Bluemke DA, Finn JP, Flamm SD, Fogel MA, Friedrich MG, Ho VB, Jerosch-Herold M, Kramer CM, Manning WJ, Patel M, Pohost GM, Stillman AE, White RD, Woodard PK (2010) ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 121(22):2462–2508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Korosoglou G, Elhmidi Y, Steen H, Schellberg D, Riedle N, Ahrens J, Lehrke S, Merten C, Lossnitzer D, Radeleff J, Zugck C, Giannitsis E, Katus HA (2010) Prognostic value of high-dose dobutamine stress magnetic resonance imaging in 1,493 consecutive patients: assessment of myocardial wall motion and perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol 56(15):1225–1234. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.06.020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gorcsan J 3rd, Tanaka H (2011) Echocardiographic assessment of myocardial strain. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(14):1401–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sutherland GR, Di Salvo G, Claus P, D’Hooge J, Bijnens B (2004) Strain and strain rate imaging: a new clinical approach to quantifying regional myocardial function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 17(7):788–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jensen CJ, Eberle HC, Nassenstein K, Schlosser T, Farazandeh M, Naber CK, Sabin GV, Bruder O (2011) Impact of hyperglycemia at admission in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction as assessed by contrast-enhanced MRI. Clin Res Cardiol 100(8):649–659. doi:10.1007/s00392-011-0290-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eitel I, Friedenberger J, Fuernau G, Dumjahn A, Desch S, Schuler G, Thiele H (2011) Intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: 6-month effects on infarct size and left ventricular function. The randomised Leipzig Immediate PercutaneouS Coronary Intervention Abciximab i.v. versus i.c. in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Trial (LIPSIAbciximab-STEMI). Clin Res Cardiol 100(5):425–432. doi:10.1007/s00392-010-0260-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kane GC, Karon BL, Mahoney DW, Redfield MM, Roger VL, Burnett JC Jr, Jacobsen SJ, Rodeheffer RJ (2011) Progression of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and risk of heart failure. JAMA 306(8):856–863PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aljaroudi W, Alraies MC, Halley C, Rodriguez L, Grimm RA, Thomas JD, Jaber WA (2012) Impact of progression of diastolic dysfunction on mortality in patients with normal ejection fraction. Circulation 125(6):782–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bellenger NG, Burgess MI, Ray SG, Lahiri A, Coats AJ, Cleland JG, Pennell DJ (2000) Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable? Eur Heart J 21(16):1387–1396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Patel MR, White RD, Abbara S, Bluemke DA, Herfkens RJ, Picard M, Shaw LJ, Silver M, Stillman AE, Udelson J (2013) 2013 ACCF/ACR/ASE/ASNC/SCCT/SCMR appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging in heart failure: a joint report of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Committee and the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force. J Am Coll Cardiol 61(21):2207–2231. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schuster A, Morton G, Hussain ST, Jogiya R, Kutty S, Asrress KN, Makowski MR, Bigalke B, Perera D, Beerbaum P, Nagel E (2013) The intra-observer reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking strain assessment is independent of field strength. Eur J Radiol 82(2):296–301. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neizel M, Korosoglou G, Lossnitzer D, Kuhl H, Hoffmann R, Ocklenburg C, Giannitsis E, Osman NF, Katus HA, Steen H (2010) Impact of systolic and diastolic deformation indexes assessed by strain-encoded imaging to predict persistent severe myocardial dysfunction in patients after acute myocardial infarction at follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 56(13):1056–1062. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.070 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ceelen F, Hunter RJ, Boubertakh R, Sommer WH, Armbruster M, Schilling RJ, Petersen SE (2013) Effect of atrial fibrillation ablation on myocardial function: insights from cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1007/s10554-013-0287-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rubinshtein R, Glockner JF, Feng D, Araoz PA, Kirsch J, Syed IS, Oh JK (2009) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging versus Doppler echocardiography for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. Am J Cardiol 103(5):718–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nagueh SF, Middleton KJ, Kopelen HA, Zoghbi WA, Quinones MA (1997) Doppler tissue imaging: a noninvasive technique for evaluation of left ventricular relaxation and estimation of filling pressures. J Am Coll Cardiol 30(6):1527–1533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian J. Buss
    • 1
  • Birgit Krautz
    • 1
  • Bernhardt Schnackenburg
    • 2
  • Hassan Abdel-Aty
    • 1
  • Maria Fernanda Braggion Santos
    • 3
  • Florian Andre
    • 1
  • Malte J. Maertens
    • 1
  • Derliz Mereles
    • 1
  • Grigorios Korosoglou
    • 1
  • Evangelos Giannitsis
    • 1
  • Hugo A. Katus
    • 1
  • Henning Steen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiology, Angiology and PneumologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Clinical SciencePhilips HealthcareHamburgGermany
  3. 3.School of Medicine of Ribeirao PretoUniversity of Sao PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations