Why the study?
Microvascular rarefaction found at autopsy in remodeled myocardium of HFpEF patients had not been investigated using non-invasive methods.
Does CMR T1-mapping with intravascular and extravascular contrast media detect differences in intravascular and extracellular volumes in HFpEF patients compared to post-MI patients and healthy controls?
Does CMR T1-mapping with intravascular and extravascular contrast media detect differences in intravascular and extracellular volumes in HFpEF patients compared to post-MI patients and healthy controls?
CMR T1-mapping reveals that while extracellular volume is increased in the remodeled myocardium of HFpEF patients, intravascular volume is not reduced, contrasting with findings in post-MI scar tissue.
ECV elevation in HFpEF without IVV differences may mark extracellular remodeling; cross-sectional data leave open diagnostic utility of dual-contrast T1-mapping.
BACKGROUND: Recent autopsy studies found microvascular rarefaction in remodeled myocardium of patients who died of heart failure with preserved ejection-fraction (HFpEF). This condition has not been investigated so far by non-invasive methods in patients with HFpEF. The aim was to quantify the intravascular volume (IVV) compartment by CMR in HFpEF patients. METHODS: -mapping (MOLLI-sequence) before and after IV bolus of 0.03 mmol/Kg of the intravascular contrast-medium (CM) Gadofosveset and 0.2 mmol/Kg of the extravascular CM Gadobutrol yielding IVV and extracellular volume (ECV), respectively. Healthy controls (n = 10 with Gadofosveset only, n = 10 with Gadobutrol only) were also studied with the same protocol. IVV and ECV were measured in the basal septum (without ischemic scar in post-MI patients). In post-MI patients, ECV and IVV were also measured in the ischemic scar. Left ventricular (LV) volumes, mass, and ejection-fraction were measured by standard protocol. LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) was calculated by feature tracking on long-axis cine acquisitions. RESULTS: LV mass to end-diastolic volume ratio and GLS in HFpEF were higher and lower, respectively, than in healthy controls and post-MI patients, whereas the post-MI patients showed lower LV ejection-fraction. Compared to healthy myocardium of controls, IVV in scar was reduced (0.135 ± 0.018 vs 0.109 ± 0.008, respectively, p = 0.005), while ECV was increased (0.244 ± 0.037 vs 0.698 ± 0.106, respectively, p < 0.001). However, IVV did not differ among HFpEF, post-MI, and healthy controls (0.155 ± 0.033, 0.146 ± 0.038, and 0.135 ± 0.018, respectively, p = 0.413), whereas ECV was higher in HFpEF than in post-MI and healthy controls (0.304 ± 0.159, 0.270 ± 0.017, and 0.244 ± 0.037, respectively, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: -mapping technique combined with an intravascular CM shows potential to measure IVV. In infarct scar with substantially increased ECV, IVV was significantly reduced. Unlike in infarct scar, in remodeled myocardium of HFpEF patients, increased ECV was not accompanied by a reduction of IVV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Masci et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: