Key result
HOCM shows ~49% higher global radial and circumferential strain on CMR versus HNCM.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether significant differences exist in myocardial strain between HOCM and HNCM as assessed by CMR-FT.
Are there significant differences in global and segmental myocardial strain assessed by CMR-FT between hypertrophic obstructive and nonobstructive cardiomyopathy?
Observational (n=54)
Are there significant differences in global and segmental myocardial strain assessed by CMR-FT between hypertrophic obstructive and nonobstructive cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 31.67% vs 21.26%
p-value: p=<0.001
HOCM patients exhibit higher left ventricular apical, mid-anterior, and mid-anteroseptal strain parameters compared with HNCM patients, independent of segmental thickness and late gadolinium enhancement.
Strain differences by obstruction status should not change practice; leaves open CMR-FT utility for HCM phenotyping pending validation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate any significant differences in myocardial strain between hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) and nonobstructive ones (HNCM), as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 17 patients (mean age: 54±14 y) with echocardiographic diagnosis of HOCM (left ventricular outflow tract obstruction peak gradient ≥30 mm Hg), 19 patients (mean age: 49±16 y) with HNCM (peak gradient <30 mm Hg), and 18 age-matched and gender-matched healthy controls (mean age: 42±14 y). All patients underwent cardiac MRI with SSFP-cine to assess left ventricular global and segmental strain analysis by CMR-FT. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) sequences were used for semiautomatic quantification of LGE volume, mass, and percentage. RESULTS: The magnitude of global radial, circumferential, and longitudinal strain as well as strain rate were significantly lower in all patients in comparison to controls (P<0.001), except for radial and circumferential strain between HOCM and controls (P=0.270; P=0.154). The latter strain parameters were significantly higher in HOCM than HNCM (radial strain: 31.67±7.55 vs. 21.26±7.10, P<0.001; circumferential strain: -17.94±2.78 vs. -13.46±3.42, P<0.001). Radial and circumferential strain and circumferential diastolic strain rate were higher in mid-anterior (P<0.001), mid-anteroseptal (P<0.001), and all apical segments (P<0.005) between the 2 groups of patients. Moreover, longitudinal strain was higher only in apical segments in HOCM (P<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: HOCM patients showed higher left ventricular apical, mid-anterior, and mid-anteroseptal strain parameters compared with HNCM. These differences were independent of corresponding segmental thickness and LGE amount.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palmisano et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (n=54). Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) vs. HNCM and healthy controls was evaluated on Global and segmental myocardial strain (p=<0.001). Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking revealed significantly higher global radial (31.67 vs. 21.26) and circumferential strain in HOCM compared to HNCM patients (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: