English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): British Heart Foundation HRUK Background. Four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging provides quantification of intra-cavity left ventricular (LV) flow kinetic energy (KE) parameters in three dimensions. Myocardial infarction (MI) is known to cause acute alterations in intra-cardiac blood flow but assessments of longitudinal changes are lacking. Purpose. Assess longitudinal changes in LV flow post ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Method. Twenty acutely reperfused STEMI patients (13 men, 7 women, mean age 54 ± 9 years) underwent 3T CMR acutely (within 5-7 days) and 3 months post-MI.  CMR protocol included functional imaging, late gadolinium enhancement and 4D flow. Using Q-MASS, LV KE parameters were derived and indexed to LV end-diastolic volume (LVKEiEDV). Based on acute ejection fraction (EF), patients were grouped as follows: preserved (pEF) EF &amp;gt;50%, reduced (rEF) EF &amp;lt;50% including mild (rEF= 40-49%), moderate to severe (EF &amp;lt;40%) impairment.  Results. Out of 20 patients, 13 had rEF acutely (7 mild rEF, 6 moderate to severe rEF). Acute LVKEiEDV parameters varied significantly between pEF and rEF (Table). At 3 months, pEF and mild rEF patients showed a significant (P &amp;lt; 0.05) reduction in average, systolic and peak-A wave LVKEiEDV. Mild rEF patients also had significant (P &amp;lt; 0.05) reduction in minimal and peak-E wave LVKEiEDV. However in patients with moderate to severe rEF in the acute scan, there were no significant change by 3 months (Figure). Conclusion. Following MI, 4D flow LVKE derived biomarkers significantly decreased over time in pEF and mild rEF groups but not in moderate to severe rEF group. 4D flow assessment might provide incremental prognostic value beyond EF assessment alone. Table pEF (n = 7) rEF (n = 13) V1 V2 P-value V1 V2 P-value EF(%) 56 ± 5 55 ± 4 0.40 41 ± 7 47 ± 9 0.01 Infarct Size(%) 31 ± 20 15 ± 9 0.04 18 ± 13† 16 ± 11 0.41 LV KEiEDV parameters Average(µJ/ml) 9 ± 2 7 ± 2 0.02 10 ± 3† 8 ± 3 0.01 Minimal(µJ/ml) 1 ± 0.6 1 ± 0.5 0.46 1.3 ± 0.5 1 ± 0.6 0.03 Systolic(µJ/ml) 10 ± 4 7 ± 2 &amp;lt;0.01 12 ± 4† 7 ± 3 &amp;lt;0.01 Diastolic(µJ/ml) 8 ± 3 7 ± 2 0.13 9 ± 3 8 ± 3 0.09 Peak-E wave(µJ/ml) 22 ± 9 23 ± 8 0.44 20 ± 7 18 ± 10 0.23 Peak-A wave(µJ/ml) 18 ± 10 11 ± 4 0.04 17 ± 9 14 ± 7 0.02 †P &amp;lt; 0.05 V1 comparison between pEF and rEF Abstract Figure

Longitudinal change in left ventricular 4D flow kinetic energy after myocardial infarction