4.7 Article

The pathophysiology of the chronic cardiorenal syndrome: a magnetic resonance imaging study

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1684-1691

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3571-5

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging; Renal function; Renal perfusion; Cardiac function; Cardiorenal syndrome

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. University of Nottingham
  3. British Heart Foundation Research Training Fellowship Grant [FS/11/10/28564]
  4. British Heart Foundation [FS/11/10/28564] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To study the association of renal function with renal perfusion and renal parenchymal structure (T-1 relaxation) in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). After IRB approval, 40 participants were enrolled according to HF and renal function status [10 healthy volunteers < 40 years; 10 healthy age-matched volunteers; 10 HF patients eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2); 10 HF patients eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)] and assessed by MRI. To be eligible for enrolment all HF patients with renal dysfunction (RD) needed to be diagnosed as having chronic cardiorenal syndrome based on current guidelines. Patients with primary kidney disease were excluded. Renal cortical perfusion correlated with eGFR values (r = 0.52;p < 0.01) and was similar between HF patients with and without RD (p = 0.27). T-1 relaxation correlated negatively with eGFR values (r = -0.41;p > 0.01) and was higher in HF patients compared to volunteers (1121 +/- 102 ms vs. 1054 +/- 65 ms;p = 0.03). T-1 relaxation was selectively prolonged in HF patients with RD (1169 ms +/- 100 vs. HF without RD 1067 ms +/- 79;p = 0.047). In linear regression analyses coronary artery disease (p = 0.01), hypertension (p = 0.04), and diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01) were associated with T-1 relaxation. RD in HF is not primarily mediated by decreased renal perfusion. Instead, chronic reno-parenchymal damage, as indicated by prolonged T-1 relaxation, appears to underly chronic cardiorenal syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据