Key result
Ultra-high field CMR tagging detected significantly reduced circumferential strain rate in diabetic mice compared to controls (4.24 vs 5.94 1/s, p<0.01), correlating with invasive measurements.
Why the study?
Does ultra-high field CMR tagging accurately assess diastolic function compared to invasive pressure-volume loop analysis in mice?
Does ultra-high field CMR tagging accurately assess diastolic function compared to invasive pressure-volume loop analysis in mice?
Ultra-high field CMR tagging provides a valid non-invasive method for assessing diastolic function in murine models, correlating well with invasive pressure-volume loop analysis.
Supports non-invasive diastolic assessment in diabetic mouse models; leaves open translation to clinical ultra-high field CMR.
Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction accounts for approximately half of all heart failure cases and is associated with similar morbidity and mortality. Although abnormalities of diastolic function are felt to play an important role, no specific treatments have been identified for this common condition, primarily because of poor understanding of its pathophysiology. Despite development of several murine models of this disease, accurate non-invasive assessment of diastolic function has been challenging. Echocardiographic measurements have been limited by small heart sizes, rapid ventricular rates and high inter-observer variability. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of ultra-high field, high temporal resolution CMR tagging to assess diastolic function in mice, compared to the gold-standard technique of invasive pressure-volume loop analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chung et al. (2013) studied Diastolic dysfunction (n=11). High fat diet-induced diabetes vs. Age-matched controls was evaluated on Maximal circumferential strain (Ecc) rate (1/s) (p=<0.01). Ultra-high field CMR tagging detected significantly reduced circumferential strain rate in diabetic mice compared to controls (4.24 vs 5.94 1/s, p<0.01), correlating with invasive measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: