Noninvasive left ventricular pressure-volume loop analysis from cardiac MRI showed low interobserver variability for stroke work (2 ± 9%), potential energy (4 ± 11%), and maximal elastance (-4 ± 7%).
Observational (n=75)
Is the noninvasive assessment of left ventricular pressure-volume relations using cardiac MRI and brachial blood pressure reproducible across different heart failure subtypes?
Noninvasive derivation of left ventricular pressure-volume loops from cardiac MRI and brachial blood pressure is a robust and reproducible method across various heart failure subtypes.
A novel method to derive pressure-volume (PV) loops noninvasively from cardiac magnetic resonance images has recently been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability of hemodynamic parameters obtained from noninvasive PV loops in healthy controls, subclinical diastolic dysfunction (SDD), and patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, mildly reduced ejection fraction, and reduced ejection fraction. We included 75 subjects, of whom 15 were healthy controls, 15 subjects with SDD (defined as fulfilling 1 to 2 echocardiographic criteria for diastolic dysfunction), and 15 patients with preserved ejection fraction, 15 with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and 15 with reduced ejection fraction. PV loops were computed using time-resolved left ventricular volumes from cardiac magnetic resonance images and a brachial blood pressure. Inter- and intraobserver variability and intergroup differences of PV loop-derived hemodynamic parameters were assessed. Bias was low and limits of agreement were narrow for all hemodynamic parameters in the inter- and intraobserver comparisons. Interobserver difference for stroke work was 2 ± 9%, potential energy was 4 ± 11%, and maximal ventricular elastance was -4 ± 7%. Intraobserver for stroke work was -1 ± 7%, potential energy was 3 ± 4%, and maximal ventricular elastance was 1 ± 5%. In conclusion, this study presents a fully noninvasive left ventricular PV loop analysis across healthy controls, subjects with SDD, and patients with heart failure with preserved or impaired systolic function. In conclusion, the method for PV loop computation from clinical-standard manual left ventricular segmentation was rapid and robust, bridging the gap between clinical and research settings.
Edlund et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Heart failure and subclinical diastolic dysfunction (n=75). Noninvasive pressure-volume loop analysis from cardiac magnetic resonance images was evaluated on Inter- and intraobserver variability of PV loop-derived hemodynamic parameters. Noninvasive left ventricular pressure-volume loop analysis from cardiac MRI showed low interobserver variability for stroke work (2 ± 9%), potential energy (4 ± 11%), and maximal elastance (-4 ± 7%).