Why the study?
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remains challenging to diagnose, and data supporting cardiac magnetic resonance atrial measurements, feature tracking, or tagging are absent.
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) strain analysis and atrial size accurately identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in suspected patients?
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) strain analysis and atrial size accurately identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in suspected patients?
CMR-derived left atrial reservoir strain, area index, and volume index provide high diagnostic accuracy for identifying HFpEF, outperforming ventricular feature tracking and tagging.
Aims Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. Cardiac magnetic resonance atrial measurement, feature tracking (CMR-FT), tagging has long been suggested to diagnose HFpEF and potentially complement echocardiography especially when echocardiography is indeterminate. Data supporting the use of CMR atrial measurements, CMR-FT or tagging, are absent. Our aim is to conduct a prospective case-control study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CMR atrial volume/area, CMR-FT, and tagging to diagnose HFpEF amongst patients suspected of having HFpEF. Methods and results One hundred and twenty-one suspected HFpEF patients were prospectively recruited from four centres. Patients underwent echocardiography, CMR, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements within 24 h to diagnose HFpEF. Patients without HFpEF diagnosis underwent catheter pressure measurements or stress echocardiography to confirm HFpEF or non-HFpEF. Area under the curve (AUC) was determined by comparing HFpEF with non-HFpEF patients. Fifty-three HFpEF (median age 78 years, interquartile range 74–82 years) and thirty-eight non-HFpEF (median age 70 years, interquartile range 64–76 years) were recruited. Cardiac magnetic resonance left atrial (LA) reservoir strain (ResS), LA area index (LAAi), and LA volume index (LAVi) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUCs 0.803, 0.815, and 0.776, respectively). Left atrial ResS, LAAi, and LAVi had significantly better diagnostic accuracy than CMR-FT left ventricle (LV)/right ventricle (RV) parameters and tagging (P < 0.01). Tagging circumferential and radial strain had poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.644 and 0.541, respectively). Conclusion Cardiac magnetic resonance LA ResS, LAAi, and LAVi have the highest diagnostic accuracy to identify HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF patients amongst clinically suspected HFpEF patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking LV/RV parameters and tagging had low diagnostic accuracy to diagnose HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ng et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: