Why the study?
In MRI, the comparability of gated and non-gated measurements of left atrial area and function, as well as their association with cardiovascular risk factors, was not firmly established.
Non-gated cardiac MRI provides highly reproducible measurements of left atrial size that correlate with cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, suggesting its potential utility for opportunistic screening.
CMR LA metrics may aid early hypertension effect detection in primary prevention; leaves open whether non-gated sequences improve risk stratification in prospective studies.
Background: In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the comparability of gated and non-gated measurements of the left atrial (LA) area and function and their association with cardiovascular risk factors have not been firmly established. Methods: 3-Tesla MRIs were performed on 400 subjects enrolled in the KORA (Cooperative Health Research in the Augsburg Region) MRI study. The LA maximum and minimum sizes were segmented in gated CINE four-chamber sequences (LAmax and LAmin) and non-gated T1 VIBE-Dixon (NGLA). The area-based LA function was defined as LAaf = (LAmax − LAmin)/LAmax. Inter-and intra-reader reliability tests were performed (n = 31). Linear regression analyses were conducted to link LA size and function with cardiovascular risk factors. Results: Data from 378 subjects were included in the analysis (mean age: 56.3 years, 57.7 % male). The measurements were highly reproducible (all intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ 0.98). The average LAmax was 19.6 ± 4.5 cm2, LAmin 11.9 ± 3.5 cm2, NGLA 16.8 ± 4 cm2 and LAaf 40 ± 9%. In regression analysis, hypertension was significantly associated with larger gated LAmax (β = 1.30), LAmin (β = 1.07), and non-gated NGLA (β = 0.94, all p ≤ 0.037). Increasing age was inversely associated with LAaf (β = −1.93, p < 0.001). Conclusion: LA enlargement, as measured in gated and non-gated CMR is associated with hypertension, while the area-based LA function decreases with age.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kulka et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: