Premium
Comparison of Four‐Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis of Left Ventricular Fluid Dynamics and Energetics in Ischemic and Restrictive Cardiomyopathies
Author(s) -
Riva Alessandra,
Sturla Francesco,
Pica Silvia,
Camporeale Antonia,
Tondi Lara,
Saitta Simone,
Caimi Alessandro,
Giese Daniel,
Palladini Giovanni,
Milani Paolo,
Castelvecchio Serenella,
Menicanti Lorenzo,
Redaelli Alberto,
Lombardi Massimo,
Votta Emiliano
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.28076
Subject(s) - cardiology , magnetic resonance imaging , medicine , diastole , cardiomyopathy , hemodynamics , heart failure , radiology , blood pressure
Background Time‐resolved three‐directional velocity‐encoded (4D flow) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables the quantification of left ventricular (LV) intracavitary fluid dynamics and energetics, providing mechanistic insight into LV dysfunctions. Before becoming a support to diagnosis and patient stratification, this analysis should prove capable of discriminating between clearly different LV derangements. Purpose To investigate the potential of 4D flow in identifying fluid dynamic and energetics derangements in ischemic and restrictive LV cardiomyopathies. Study Type Prospective observational study. Population Ten patients with post‐ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), 10 patients with cardiac light‐chain cardiac amyloidosis (AL‐CA), and 10 healthy controls were included. Field Strength/Sequence 1.5 T/balanced steady‐state free precession cine and 4D flow sequences. Assessment Flow was divided into four components: direct flow (DF), retained inflow, delayed ejection flow, and residual volume (RV). Demographics, LV morphology, flow components, global and regional energetics (volume‐normalized kinetic energy [KE V ] and viscous energy loss [EL V ]), and pressure‐derived hemodynamic force (HDF) were compared between the three groups. Statistical Tests Intergroup differences in flow components were tested by one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA); differences in energetic variables and peak HDF were tested by two‐way ANOVA. A P ‐value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results ICM patients exhibited the following statistically significant alterations vs. controls: reduced KE V , mostly in the basal region, in systole (−44%) and in diastole (−37%); altered flow components, with reduced DF (−33%) and increased RV (+26%); and reduced basal–apical HDF component on average by 63% at peak systole. AL‐CA patients exhibited the following alterations vs. controls: significantly reduced KE V at the E‐wave peak in the basal segment (−34%); albeit nonstatistically significant, increased peaks and altered time‐course of the HDF basal–apical component in diastole and slightly reduced HDF components in systole. Data Conclusion The analysis of multiple 4D flow‐derived parameters highlighted fluid dynamic alterations associated with systolic and diastolic dysfunctions in ICM and AL‐CA patients, respectively. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 3