Classification of diastolic function with phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: validation with echocardiography and age-related reference values
- 363 Downloads
To investigate whether cardiac magnetic resonance phase-contrast imaging (PC-CMR) can determine left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in comparison to echocardiography (EC).
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsLeft ventricular function Diastolic function Echocardiography Cardiac magnetic resonance
Cardiac magnetic resonance
Mitral blood flow
Phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance
Pulmonary vein flow
Pulsed-wave time Doppler imaging
Conflict of interest
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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.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.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.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.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.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