Range Variability in CMR Feature Tracking Multilayer Strain across Different Stages of Heart Failure.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 11 2019
11 11 2019
Historique:
received:
28
06
2019
accepted:
22
10
2019
entrez:
13
11
2019
pubmed:
13
11
2019
medline:
13
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Heart failure (HF) is associated with progressive ventricular remodeling and impaired contraction that affects distinctly various regions of the myocardium. Our study applied cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (FT) to assess comparatively myocardial strain at 3 distinct levels: subendocardial (Endo-), mid (Myo-) and subepicardial (Epi-) myocardium across an extended spectrum of patients with HF. 59 patients with HF, divided into 3 subgroups as follows: preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, N = 18), HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF, N = 21), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, N = 20) and a group of age- gender- matched volunteers (N = 17) were included. Using CMR FT we assessed systolic longitudinal and circumferential strain and strain-rate at Endo-, Myo- and Epi- levels. Strain values were the highest in the Endo- layer and progressively lower in the Myo- and Epi- layers respectively, this gradient was present in all the patients groups analyzed but decreased progressively in HFmrEF and further on in HFrEF groups. GLS decreased with the severity of the disease in all 3 layers: Normal > HFpEF > HFmrEF > HFrEF (Endo-: -23.0 ± 3.5 > -20.0 ± 3.3 > -16.4 ± 2.2 > -11.0 ± 3.2, p < 0.001, Myo-: -20.7 ± 2.4 > -17.5.0 ± 2.6 > -14.5 ± 2.1 > -9.6 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; Epi-: -15.7 ± 1.9 > -12.2 ± 2.1 > -10.6 ± 2.3 > -7.7 ± 2.3, p < 0.001). In contrast, GCS was not different between the Normal and HFpEF (Endo-: -34.5 ± 6.2 vs -33.9 ± 5.7, p = 0.51; Myo-: -21.9 ± 3.8 vs -21.3 ± 2.2, p = 0.39, Epi-: -11.4 ± 2.0 vs -10.9 ± 2.3, p = 0.54) but was, as well, markedly lower in the systolic heart failure groups: Normal > HFmrEF > HFrEF (Endo-: -34.5 ± 6.2 > -20.0 ± 4.2 > 12.3 ± 4.2, p < 0.001; Myo-: -21.9 ± 3.8 > -13.0 ± 3.4 > -8.0 ± 2.7. p < 0.001; Epi-: -11.4 ± 2.0 > -7.9 ± 2.3 > -4.5 ± 1.9. p < 0.001). CMR feature tracking multilayer strain assessment identifies large range differences between distinct myocardial regions. Our data emphasizes the importance of sub-endocardial myocardium for cardiac contraction and thus, its predilect role in imaging detection of functional impairment. CMR feature tracking offers a convenient, readily available, platform to evaluate myocardial contraction with excellent spatial resolution, rendering further details about discrete areas of the myocardium. Using this technique across distinct groups of patients with heart failure (HF), we demonstrate that subendocardial regions of the myocardium exhibit much higher strain values than mid-myocardium or subepicardial and are more sensitive to detect contractile impairment. We also show comparatively higher values of circumferential strain compared with longitudinal and a higher sensitivity to detect contractile impairment. A newly characterized group of patients, HF with mid-range ejection fraction (EF), shows similar traits of decompensation but has relatively higher strain values as patients with HF with reduced EF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31712641
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52683-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-52683-8
pmc: PMC6848170
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16478Références
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Dec 1;19(12):1390-1396
pubmed: 29211878
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001 Feb;280(2):H610-20
pubmed: 11158958
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 Mar;10(2):303-8
pubmed: 18801725
Am J Transl Res. 2017 Jun 15;9(6):3006-3016
pubmed: 28670388
Echocardiography. 2016 Apr;33(4):510-8
pubmed: 26661049
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1433-1444
pubmed: 29454776
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Apr 18;17:29
pubmed: 25928314
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Apr;89:97-105
pubmed: 28267556
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018 Nov;31(11):1209-1211
pubmed: 30269910
Circulation. 2000 Jul 25;102(4):470-9
pubmed: 10908222
Herz. 2018 Aug;43(5):392-405
pubmed: 29955907
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010 Nov 11;12:65
pubmed: 21070636
Circ Res. 1969 Mar;24(3):339-47
pubmed: 5766515
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Jul 28;17:63
pubmed: 26215273
Eur J Heart Fail. 2017 Jul;19(7):893-900
pubmed: 28194841
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Jan;23(1):64-70
pubmed: 20122496
Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 Mar;16(3):317-24
pubmed: 24464640
Circulation. 2016 Jan 26;133(4):e38-360
pubmed: 26673558
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 22;70(8):942-954
pubmed: 28818204
Circulation. 2008 Dec 9;118(24):2571-87
pubmed: 19064692
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Sep;2(5):356-64
pubmed: 19808623
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 May 31;14:32
pubmed: 22650308
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):128-37
pubmed: 26114731
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 8;71(18):1947-1957
pubmed: 29724346
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Nov;25(11):1179-88
pubmed: 22951120
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Jun 21;14:43
pubmed: 22721175
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jan 16;71(2):254-255
pubmed: 29325646
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 May;6(5):535-44
pubmed: 23582354
Circulation. 2002 Jan 29;105(4):539-42
pubmed: 11815441
Echocardiography. 2019 Feb;36(2):257-265
pubmed: 30561121
Circulation. 2005 Dec 13;112(24):3738-44
pubmed: 16330684
MAGMA. 2018 Feb;31(1):75-85
pubmed: 28620752
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Feb 11;63(5):447-56
pubmed: 24184245
Lancet. 2018 Feb 10;391(10120):572-580
pubmed: 29174292
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jan 16;71(2):255-256
pubmed: 29325647
Radiology. 2019 Mar;290(3):640-648
pubmed: 30561279
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Mar 15;123(6):956-960
pubmed: 30594290
Circulation. 2000 Sep 5;102(10):1158-64
pubmed: 10973846