Key result
DCM shows reduced global circumferential and radial strain compared to ICM.
Why the study?
Left ventricular longitudinal, circumferential, and radial motion can be measured with CMR feature tracking, but differences in LV mechanics between propensity score-matched DCM and ICM patients remained to be detected.
Does CMR-derived myocardial strain analysis differentiate between ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy in patients with similar ejection fractions?
Observational (n=144)
No
Does CMR-derived myocardial strain analysis differentiate between ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy in patients with similar ejection fractions?
CMR-derived global circumferential and radial strain can differentiate between ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy in patients with similar ejection fractions, reflecting inherently different layer-specific myocardial mechanics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CMR strain differences may aid DCM-ICM differentiation at similar LVEF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Purpose Left ventricular (LV) longitudinal, circumferential, and radial motion can be measured using feature tracking of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images. The aim of our study was to detect differences in LV mechanics between patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) who were matched using a propensity score-based model. Methods Between April 2017 and October 2019, 1224 patients were included in our CMR registry, among them 141 with ICM and 77 with DCM. Propensity score matching was used to pair patients based on their indexed end-diastolic volume (EDVi), ejection fraction (EF), and septal T1 relaxation time. Feature tracking provided six parameters for global longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain with corresponding strain rates. Results Propensity score matching yielded 72 patients in each group (DCM mean age 58.6 ± 11.6 years, 15 females; ICM mean age 62.6 ± 13.2 years, 11 females, p = 0.084 and 0.44 respectively; LV-EF 32.2 ± 13.5% vs. 33.8 ± 12.1%, p = 0.356; EDVi 127.2 ± 30.7 ml/m² vs. 121.1 ± 41.8 ml/m², p = 0.251; native T1 values 1165 ± 58 ms vs. 1167 ± 70 ms, p = 0.862). There was no difference in global longitudinal strain between DCM and ICM patients (-10.9 ± 5.5% vs. -11.2 ± 4.7%, p = 0.72), whereas in DCM patients there was a significant reduction in global circumferential strain (-10.0 ± 4.5% vs. -12.2 ± 4.7%, p = 0.002) and radial strain (17.1 ± 8.51 vs. 21.2 ± 9.7%, p = 0.039). Conclusion Our data suggest that ICM and DCM patients have inherently different myocardial mechanics, even if phenotypes are similar. The ability to discriminate these two conditions may aid in developing additional prognostic and therapeutic strategies in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vietheer et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Dilated cardiomyopathy and ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=144). Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) vs. Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was evaluated on Global circumferential strain (GCS) (p=0.002). Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy had significantly reduced global circumferential strain (-10.0% vs. -12.2%, p=0.002) and radial strain compared to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: