Key result
Apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was associated with significantly higher circumferential transmural strain differences compared to normal controls, with the greatest difference at the apex (36.8% vs. 21.6%, p<0.001).
Why the study?
This study aimed to explore the correlations between circumferential transmural strain difference measured using feature-tracking MRI and other markers of disease in apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Does circumferential transmural strain difference (cTSD) measured by CMR feature tracking differentiate patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from normal controls?
Case-Control (n=29)
No
Does circumferential transmural strain difference (cTSD) measured by CMR feature tracking differentiate patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from normal controls?
Absolute Event Rate: 36.8% vs 21.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
Suggests circumferential transmural strain difference may serve as a sensitive biomarker for subtle myocardial dysfunction in.
Purpose: Myocardial strain imaging is a promising tool for evaluating altered cardiac wall mechanics in thickened myocardium.Circumferential transmural strain difference (cTSD) can be readily measured using feature-tracking magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).This study aimed to explore the correlations between cTSD and other markers of disease in apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (ApHCM).Materials and Methods: A retrospective, single-center, case-control study was conducted on patients with ApHCM who underwent 1.5-T or 3.0-T cardiac MRI.Left ventricular (LV) longitudinal and circumferential strains were analyzed using feature-tracking software.cTSD was calculated as the difference between epicardial and endocardial circumferential strains.Global and segmental strains were compared between groups, and correlations between cTSD and LV mass or late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were analyzed.Results: A total of 29 participants (17 patients with ApHCM, median age 64 years, 71% men; 12 normal controls, median age 55 years, 67% men) were evaluated.Global and segmental cTSD were significantly higher in the ApHCM group than in the normal group from the base to the apex, with the greatest differences at the apex (base 19.6% vs. 16.1%,mid 24.5% vs. 16.9%, and apex 36.8% vs. 21.6%,all p < 0.05).Global cTSD showed a moderate positive correlation with indexed LV mass (ρ = 0.599, p = 0.001), while segmental cTSD showed a weak positive correlation with LGE in patients with ApHCM (ρ = 0.239, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Segmental cTSD was significantly higher in the ApHCM group than in the normal group, with the greatest difference at the apical segments.This difference was not observed in the full-thickness myocardial circumferential strain.These findings suggest that cTSD may serve as a sensitive imaging biomarker for ApHCM, not only in hypertrophied apex segments but also in non-hypertrophied myocardium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeong et al. (2025) conducted a case-control in Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (ApHCM) (n=29). Apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (ApHCM) vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Apical circumferential transmural strain difference (cTSD) (p=<0.001). Apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was associated with significantly higher circumferential transmural strain differences compared to normal controls, with the greatest difference at the apex (36.8% vs. 21.6%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: