4.6 Article

Comprehensive Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Diastolic Dysfunction Grading Shows Very Good Agreement Compared With Echocardiography

Journal

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages 2530-2542

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.06.027

Keywords

diastolic dysfunction; echocardiography; magnetic resonance imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to develop a comprehensive cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) approach to diastolic dysfunction (DD) grading and to evaluate the accuracy of CMR in the diagnosis of DD compared with echocardiography. BACKGROUND Left ventricular DD is routinely assessed using echocardiography. METHODS Consecutive clinically referred patients (n = 46; median age 59 years; interquartile range: 46 to 68 years; 33% women) underwent both conventional echocardiography and CMR. CMR diastolic transmitral velocities (E and A) and myocardial tissue velocity (e0) were measured during breath-hold using a validated high-temporal resolution radial sector-wise golden-angle velocity-encoded sequence. CMR pulmonary artery pressure was estimated from 4-dimensional flow analysis of blood flow vortex duration in the pulmonary artery. CMR left atrial volume was measured using the biplane long-axis area-length method. Both CMR and echocardiographic data were used to perform blinded grading of DD according to the 2016 joint American and European recommendations. RESULTS Grading of DD by CMR agreed with that by echocardiography in 43 of 46 cases (93%), of which 9% were normal, 2% indeterminate, 63% grade 1 DD, 4% grade 2 DD, and 15% grade 3 DD. There was a very good categorical agreement, with a weighted Cohen kappa coefficient of 0.857 (95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.00; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive CMR protocol for grading DD encompassing diastolic blood and myocardial velocities, estimated pulmonary artery pressure, and left atrial volume showed very good agreement with echocardiography. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available