Key result
Cardiac MR feature tracking showed ARVC patients had increased right ventricular mechanical dispersion compared to healthy volunteers (48 ms vs 35 ms, P=0.02), though it did not predict arrhythmia.
Why the study?
Does cardiac MR feature tracking identify changes in right ventricular strain amplitude and mechanical dispersion in ARVC patients, and do these changes indicate a propensity for arrhythmia?
Case-Control (n=51)
Does cardiac MR feature tracking identify changes in right ventricular strain amplitude and mechanical dispersion in ARVC patients, and do these changes indicate a propensity for arrhythmia?
Cardiac MR feature tracking reveals reduced basal right ventricular strain and increased mechanical dispersion in ARVC patients compared to healthy controls, though these parameters do not predict ventricular arrhythmias.
RV mechanical dispersion differs in ARVC without predicting arrhythmia; leaves open its diagnostic utility pending prospective validation.
PURPOSE: To assess right ventricular (RV) regional and global systolic function using feature tracking (FT) in patients with a definite diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and to investigate if changes in strain amplitude and mechanical dispersion indicate a propensity for arrhythmia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients fulfilling Task Force Criteria for ARVC and 24 healthy volunteers underwent MR at 1·5 Tesla. Steady-state free precession cine of long-axis slices and a short-axis stack of the RV was acquired. Segmental longitudinal systolic strain amplitude and time-to-peak (TTP) strain were measured in the four- and two-chamber views of the RV. RESULTS: Compared to controls, patients with ARVC had lower RV ejection fraction (RVEF), (53% vs 57%, P = 0·012) and lower longitudinal strain amplitude in the RV free wall (-20·6 vs -26·3%, P = 0·014) and in the basal part of the RV (-22·8 vs -31·7%, P<0·001). Mechanical dispersion, defined as the standard deviation (SD) of TTP of RV segments, was larger in patients with ARVC (48 ms [21-74] vs 35 ms [13-66 ms], P = 0·02). Patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or non-sustained VT had lower RVEF (46% vs 55%, P = 0·008), but did not have significantly lower RV strain amplitude (-19·5% vs 21·0%, P = 0·073) and no signs of mechanical dispersion (49 ms vs 48 ms, P = 0·861) compared to patients without arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: ARVC patients had lower longitudinal absolute strain amplitude in basal RV segments and increased mechanical dispersion compared to healthy volunteers, but the presence of mechanical dispersion was not predictive of ventricular arrhythmia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aneq et al. (2017) conducted a case-control in Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) (n=51). Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking vs. Healthy volunteers was evaluated on Mechanical dispersion (standard deviation of time-to-peak of RV segments) (p=0.02). Cardiac MR feature tracking showed ARVC patients had increased right ventricular mechanical dispersion compared to healthy volunteers (48 ms vs 35 ms, P=0.02), though it did not predict arrhythmia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: