What does this research mean for the field?

Compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance yields comparable left atrial passive ejection fraction to conventional segmented cine but significantly underestimates strain parameters, while maintaining similar diagnostic performance for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

July 22, 2022Open Access

Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for left atrial volume and strain assessment

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (n=61). Intervention: Compressed sensing (CS) cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs. Conventional segmented cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Primary outcome: Left atrial passive ejection fraction (EFpassive) (p=0.838).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Compressed sensing cine CMR matches conventional cine for LA passive ejection fraction but underestimates strain.

P=0.838
n=61

Why the study?

To investigate the feasibility of compressed sensing cine in quantifying left atrial volumes and strain assessments compared with conventional segmented cine.

Does compressed sensing cine CMR accurately assess left atrial volume and strain compared to conventional segmented cine in patients with LV diastolic dysfunction and healthy controls?

Population

31 patients with LV diastolic dysfunction and healthy volunteers

Comparison

Compressed sensing cine vs conventional segmented cine CMR

Design

Comparative imaging study

Authors

YCYang ChenUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China PXPanpan XuChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College WLWangyan LiuNanjing Medical University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Supports compressed sensing cine CMR for left atrial ejection fraction; leaves open strain accuracy validation in diastolic dysfunction.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=61)

Structured PICO

Does compressed sensing cine CMR accurately assess left atrial volume and strain compared to conventional segmented cine in patients with LV diastolic dysfunction and healthy controls?

Population

61 participants, including 31 patients with LV diastolic dysfunction defined by echocardiography (21 males, mean age 51±15 years) and 30 healthy volunteers (22 males, mean age 39±13 years).

Intervention

Compressed sensing (CS) cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequence.

Comparator

Conventional segmented cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequence (the gold standard).

Outcome

Left atrial (LA) volumes and strain assessments.surrogate

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 24.9% vs 26.2%

p-value: p=0.838

Compressed sensing cine CMR is clinically comparable to conventional segmented cine for assessing left atrial volumes and ejection fractions, but it significantly underestimates left atrial strain parameters.

Limitations

Enrolled patients with a wide range of cardiovascular diseases, with approximately half having an advanced stage of LA dysfunction
Used the biplane area-length method instead of Simpson's method to calculate LA volume
Did not assess regional myocardial strain abnormalities
Did not list the LA scan time on CS cine including 2- and 4-chamber views
Enrolled patients with a wide range of cardiovascular diseases, and approximately half had an advanced stage of LA dysfunction.
Used the biplane area-length method instead of Simpson's method to calculate LA volume.
Did not assess regional myocardial strain abnormalities.
Did not list the LA scan time on CS cine separately.

Cite This Study

Chen et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (n=61). Compressed sensing (CS) cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs. Conventional segmented cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance was evaluated on Left atrial passive ejection fraction (EFpassive) (p=0.838). Compressed sensing cine CMR yielded comparable left atrial passive ejection fraction to conventional segmented cine (24.9% vs 26.2%, p=0.838), but significantly underestimated strain parameters.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a15ea3dbdb7c25666523a99 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1850358/v1

Topics

Cardiac MRI

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for left atrial volume and strain assessment

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Cite This Study

Topics

Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for left atrial volume and strain assessment

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider