Diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain analysis and atrial size to identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Ming-Yen Ng, Chi Ting Kwan, Pui Min Yap, Sau Yung Fung, Hok Shing Tang, Wan Wai Vivian Tse, Cheuk Nam Felix Kwan, Yin Hay Phoebe Chow, Nga Ching Yiu, Yung Pok Lee, Ambrose Ho Tung Fong, Subin Hwang, Zachary Fai Wang Fong, Qing-Wen Ren, Mei-Zhen Wu, Eric Yuk Fai Wan, Ka Chun Kevin Lee, Chun Yu Leung, Andrew Li, David Montero, Varut Vardhanabhuti, JoJo Hai, Chung-Wah Siu, Hung-Fat Tse, Dudley John Pennell, Raad Mohiaddin, Roxy Senior, Kai-Hang Yiu
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain analysis and atrial size to identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.","authors":"Ming-Yen Ng,&nbsp;Chi Ting Kwan,&nbsp;Pui Min Yap,&nbsp;Sau Yung Fung,&nbsp;Hok Shing Tang,&nbsp;Wan Wai Vivian Tse,&nbsp;Cheuk Nam Felix Kwan,&nbsp;Yin Hay Phoebe Chow,&nbsp;Nga Ching Yiu,&nbsp;Yung Pok Lee,&nbsp;Ambrose Ho Tung Fong,&nbsp;Subin Hwang,&nbsp;Zachary Fai Wang Fong,&nbsp;Qing-Wen Ren,&nbsp;Mei-Zhen Wu,&nbsp;Eric Yuk Fai Wan,&nbsp;Ka Chun Kevin Lee,&nbsp;Chun Yu Leung,&nbsp;Andrew Li,&nbsp;David Montero,&nbsp;Varut Vardhanabhuti,&nbsp;JoJo Hai,&nbsp;Chung-Wah Siu,&nbsp;Hung-Fat Tse,&nbsp;Dudley John Pennell,&nbsp;Raad Mohiaddin,&nbsp;Roxy Senior,&nbsp;Kai-Hang Yiu","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oead021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. Cardiac magnetic resonance atrial measurement, feature tracking (CMR-FT), tagging has long been suggested to diagnose HFpEF and potentially complement echocardiography especially when echocardiography is indeterminate. Data supporting the use of CMR atrial measurements, CMR-FT or tagging, are absent. Our aim is to conduct a prospective case-control study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CMR atrial volume/area, CMR-FT, and tagging to diagnose HFpEF amongst patients suspected of having HFpEF.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>One hundred and twenty-one suspected HFpEF patients were prospectively recruited from four centres. Patients underwent echocardiography, CMR, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements within 24 h to diagnose HFpEF. Patients without HFpEF diagnosis underwent catheter pressure measurements or stress echocardiography to confirm HFpEF or non-HFpEF. Area under the curve (AUC) was determined by comparing HFpEF with non-HFpEF patients. Fifty-three HFpEF (median age 78 years, interquartile range 74-82 years) and thirty-eight non-HFpEF (median age 70 years, interquartile range 64-76 years) were recruited. Cardiac magnetic resonance left atrial (LA) reservoir strain (ResS), LA area index (LAAi), and LA volume index (LAVi) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUCs 0.803, 0.815, and 0.776, respectively). Left atrial ResS, LAAi, and LAVi had significantly better diagnostic accuracy than CMR-FT left ventricle (LV)/right ventricle (RV) parameters and tagging (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Tagging circumferential and radial strain had poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.644 and 0.541, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cardiac magnetic resonance LA ResS, LAAi, and LAVi have the highest diagnostic accuracy to identify HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF patients amongst clinically suspected HFpEF patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking LV/RV parameters and tagging had low diagnostic accuracy to diagnose HFpEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":11973,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d8/85/oead021.PMC10041670.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oead021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Aims: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. Cardiac magnetic resonance atrial measurement, feature tracking (CMR-FT), tagging has long been suggested to diagnose HFpEF and potentially complement echocardiography especially when echocardiography is indeterminate. Data supporting the use of CMR atrial measurements, CMR-FT or tagging, are absent. Our aim is to conduct a prospective case-control study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CMR atrial volume/area, CMR-FT, and tagging to diagnose HFpEF amongst patients suspected of having HFpEF.

Methods and results: One hundred and twenty-one suspected HFpEF patients were prospectively recruited from four centres. Patients underwent echocardiography, CMR, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements within 24 h to diagnose HFpEF. Patients without HFpEF diagnosis underwent catheter pressure measurements or stress echocardiography to confirm HFpEF or non-HFpEF. Area under the curve (AUC) was determined by comparing HFpEF with non-HFpEF patients. Fifty-three HFpEF (median age 78 years, interquartile range 74-82 years) and thirty-eight non-HFpEF (median age 70 years, interquartile range 64-76 years) were recruited. Cardiac magnetic resonance left atrial (LA) reservoir strain (ResS), LA area index (LAAi), and LA volume index (LAVi) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUCs 0.803, 0.815, and 0.776, respectively). Left atrial ResS, LAAi, and LAVi had significantly better diagnostic accuracy than CMR-FT left ventricle (LV)/right ventricle (RV) parameters and tagging (P < 0.01). Tagging circumferential and radial strain had poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.644 and 0.541, respectively).

Conclusion: Cardiac magnetic resonance LA ResS, LAAi, and LAVi have the highest diagnostic accuracy to identify HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF patients amongst clinically suspected HFpEF patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking LV/RV parameters and tagging had low diagnostic accuracy to diagnose HFpEF.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

心血管磁共振应变分析和心房大小对保留射血分数的心力衰竭的诊断准确性。
目的:保留射血分数的心力衰竭(HFpEF)仍然是一个诊断挑战。长期以来,心脏磁共振心房测量、特征跟踪(CMR-FT)和标记一直被建议用于诊断HFpEF,并可能补充超声心动图,特别是在超声心动图不确定的情况下。没有支持使用CMR心房测量、CMR- ft或标记的数据。我们的目的是进行一项前瞻性病例对照研究,评估CMR心房容积/面积、CMR- ft和标签诊断疑似HFpEF患者的HFpEF的准确性。方法和结果:从四个中心前瞻性地招募了121例疑似HFpEF患者。患者在24小时内通过超声心动图、CMR和n端前b型利钠肽(NT-proBNP)测量来诊断HFpEF。未诊断为HFpEF的患者通过导管压力测量或应激超声心动图来确认HFpEF或非HFpEF。通过比较HFpEF和非HFpEF患者来确定曲线下面积(AUC)。招募了53名HFpEF患者(中位年龄78岁,四分位数范围74-82岁)和38名非HFpEF患者(中位年龄70岁,四分位数范围64-76岁)。心磁共振左房(LA)储层应变(ResS)、LA面积指数(LAAi)和LA容积指数(LAVi)的诊断准确率最高(auc分别为0.803、0.815和0.776)。左房ResS、LAAi、LAVi的诊断准确率显著高于CMR-FT左心室(LV)/右心室(RV)参数及标记(P < 0.01)。标记周向应变和径向应变的诊断准确性较差(AUC分别为0.644和0.541)。结论:在临床上疑似HFpEF患者中,心脏磁共振LA ResS、LAAi和LAVi对HFpEF患者和非HFpEF患者的诊断准确率最高。心脏磁共振特征跟踪左室/右室参数和标记诊断HFpEF的准确率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信