Left Ventricular Diastolic Function Studied with Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Relation to Established Measures of Diastolic Function
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Systematic Search and Eligible Studies
2.2. Data Collection
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. CMR Tagging—Brief Description
3.2. CMR Tagging—Diastolic Rotation/Untwisting
3.3. CMR Tagging—Diastolic Strain Rates
3.4. CMR Tagging—Time to Peak Untwist
3.5. CMR Tagging—Peak Change of Torsion Shear Angle versus Volume Changes in Early Diastole (−dφ′/dV′)
3.6. CMR Tagging—Summarized
3.7. LV and LA Time/Volume Curves—Brief Description
3.8. LV Time/Volume Curves—Early and Active Peak Filling Rate
3.9. LV Time/Volume Curve—Summarized
3.10. LA Time/Volume Curve—Reservoir, Conduit, and Pump Function
3.11. LA Time/Volume Curve—Summarized
3.12. Velocity-Encoded Phase-Contrast Sequences
3.13. Velocity-Encoded Phase-Contrast Sequences—Summarized
3.14. LV and LA Feature Tracking—Brief Description
3.15. LV Feature Tracking—Peak Diastolic Strain Rate
3.16. LV Feature Tracking—Summarized
3.17. LA Feature Tracking—Reservoir, Conduit, and Pump Function
3.18. LA Feature Tracking—Summarized
3.19. Other Novel Techniques
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gaasch, W.H. Deliberations on Diastolic Heart Failure. Am. J. Cardiol. 2017, 119, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, G.A.; Schelbert, E.B.; Williams, S.G.; Cunnington, C.; Ahmed, F.; McDonagh, T.A.; Miller, C.A. Biological Phenotypes of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 70, 2186–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, A.; Rich, M.W.; Fleg, J.L.; Zile, M.R.; Young, J.B.; Kitzman, D.W.; Love, T.E.; Aronow, W.S.; Adams, K.F., Jr.; Gheorghiade, M. Effects of digoxin on morbidity and mortality in diastolic heart failure: The ancillary digitalis investigation group trial. Circulation 2006, 114, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yusuf, S.; Pfeffer, M.A.; Swedberg, K.; Granger, C.B.; Held, P.; McMurray, J.J.; Michelson, E.L.; Olofsson, B.; Ostergren, J. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: The CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet 2003, 362, 777–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massie, B.M.; Carson, P.E.; McMurray, J.J.; Komajda, M.; McKelvie, R.; Zile, M.R.; Anderson, S.; Donovan, M.; Iverson, E.; Staiger, C.; et al. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 2456–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nagueh, S.F.; Smiseth, O.A.; Appleton, C.P.; Byrd, B.F., 3rd; Dokainish, H.; Edvardsen, T.; Flachskampf, F.A.; Gillebert, T.C.; Klein, A.L.; Lancellotti, P.; et al. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 17, 1321–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andersen, O.S.; Smiseth, O.A.; Dokainish, H.; Abudiab, M.M.; Schutt, R.C.; Kumar, A.; Sato, K.; Harb, S.; Gude, E.; Remme, E.W.; et al. Estimating Left Ventricular Filling Pressure by Echocardiography. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 1937–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lancellotti, P.; Galderisi, M.; Edvardsen, T.; Donal, E.; Goliasch, G.; Cardim, N.; Magne, J.; Laginha, S.; Hagendorff, A.; Haland, T.F.; et al. Echo-Doppler estimation of left ventricular filling pressure: Results of the multicentre EACVI Euro-Filling study. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 18, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caudron, J.; Fares, J.; Bauer, F.; Dacher, J.N. Evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function with cardiac MR imaging. RadioGraphics 2011, 31, 239–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westenberg, J.J. CMR for Assessment of Diastolic Function. Curr. Cardiovasc. Imaging Rep. 2011, 4, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flachskampf, F.A.; Biering-Sorensen, T.; Solomon, S.D.; Duvernoy, O.; Bjerner, T.; Smiseth, O.A. Cardiac Imaging to Evaluate Left Ventricular Diastolic Function. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 8, 1071–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stuber, M.; Scheidegger, M.B.; Fischer, S.E.; Nagel, E.; Steinemann, F.; Hess, O.M.; Boesiger, P. Alterations in the local myocardial motion pattern in patients suffering from pressure overload due to aortic stenosis. Circulation 1999, 100, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharifov, O.F.; Schiros, C.G.; Aban, I.; Perry, G.J.; Dell’italia, L.J.; Lloyd, S.G.; Denney, T.S., Jr.; Gupta, H. Left Ventricular Torsion Shear Angle Volume Approach for Noninvasive Evaluation of Diastolic Dysfunction in Preserved Ejection Fraction. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aquaro, G.D.; Pizzino, F.; Terrizzi, A.; Carerj, S.; Khandheria, B.K.; Di Bella, G. Diastolic dysfunction evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance: The value of the combined assessment of atrial and ventricular function. Eur. Radiol. 2019, 29, 1555–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, C.; Tao, Y.; Pan, J.; Shen, C.; Zhang, J.; ** of myocardial motion: New insight in age and gender. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2010, 3, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Seemann, F.; Pahlm, U.; Steding-Ehrenborg, K.; Ostenfeld, E.; Erlinge, D.; Dubois-Rande, J.L.; Jensen, S.E.; Atar, D.; Arheden, H.; Carlsson, M.; et al. Time-resolved tracking of the atrioventricular plane displacement in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) images. BMC Med. Imaging 2017, 17, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, X.; Tan, R.S.; Tang, H.C.; Leng, S.; Zhang, J.M.; Zhong, L. Analysis of three-dimensional endocardial and epicardial strains from cardiac magnetic resonance in healthy subjects and patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2017, 56, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamphuis, V.P.; Westenberg, J.J.M.; van der Palen, R.L.F.; van Den Boogaard, P.J.; van der Geest, R.J.; de Roos, A.; Blom, N.A.; Roest, A.A.W.; Elbaz, M.S.M. Scan-rescan reproducibility of diastolic left ventricular kinetic energy, viscous energy loss and vorticity assessment using 4D flow MRI: Analysis in healthy subjects. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 34, 905–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Casas, B.; Viola, F.; Cedersund, G.; Bolger, A.F.; Karlsson, M.; Carlhall, C.J.; Ebbers, T. Non-invasive Assessment of Systolic and Diastolic Cardiac Function During Rest and Stress Conditions Using an Integrated Image-Modeling Approach. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crandon, S.; Westenberg, J.J.M.; Swoboda, P.P.; Fent, G.J.; Foley, J.R.J.; Chew, P.G.; Brown, L.A.E.; Saunderson, C.; Al-Mohammad, A.; Greenwood, J.P.; et al. Impact of Age and Diastolic Function on Novel, 4D flow CMR Biomarkers of Left Ventricular Blood Flow Kinetic Energy. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 14436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Thavendiranathan, P.; Guetter, C.; da Silveira, J.S.; Lu, X.; Scandling, D.; Xue, H.; Jolly, M.P.; Raman, S.V.; Simonetti, O.P. Mitral annular velocity measurement with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using a novel annular tracking algorithm: Validation against echocardiography. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019, 55, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator ^ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Normalized apical rotation rate ◊ (s−1) | Oxenham [24] 2003 | 15 (22 ± 3) Healthy young | 15 (69 ± 4) Healthy elderly | 1.5T SPAMM TR: 35–45 ms ST: 7 mm SR: In-plane 1 mm/pixel | −7 ± 1 | −5 ± 1 * | Echo-Doppler; E 74 ± 16 vs. E 46 ± 10 |
- | Thompson [25] 2010 | 32 (33 ± 7) Healthy | 1.5T SPAMM TR: 20 ms ST: 8 mm SR: Matrix 192 × 128 FoV:300–380 mm | −13 ± 3 | No | ||
- | Nagel [26] 2000 | 12 (29 ± 6) Healthy | 13 (61 ± 12) AS | 1.5T CSPAMM TR 35 ms ST: 6–8 mm SR: In-plane pixel 1.4 × 1.4 mm | −11 ± 2 | −7 ± 1 * | No |
Normalized global untwisting rate ◊ (s−1) | Thompson [25] 2010 | 32 (33 ± 7) Healthy | See above | −14 ± 2 | No | ||
- | Reyhan [27] 2013 | 13 (33 ± 11) Healthy | 1.5T CSPAMM TR: NR ST: 5–6 mm SR: Matrix 192 × 144 FoV 300–360 × 280–300 mm | −8 ± 2 | No | ||
- | Reyhan [28] 2014 | 13 (33 ± 11) Healthy | 1.5T CSPAMM TR: NR ST: 5–6 mm SR: Matrix 192 × 144 FoV 300–360 × 280–300 | −9 ± 2 | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator ^ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Global circumferential-longitudinal shear strain rate (% s−1) | Thompson [25] 2010 | 32 (33 ± 7) Healthy | 1.5T SPAMM TR: 20 ms ST: 8 mm SR: Matrix 192 × 128 FoV:300–380 mm | 72 ± 13 | No | ||
Normalized global circumferential-longitudinal shear strain rate ◊ (s−1) | Thompson [25] 2010 | 32 (33 ± 7) Healthy | See above | −12 ± 1.4 | No | ||
Global peak circumferential strain rate (% s−1) | Fonseca [29] 2004 | 31 (47 ± 24) Healthy | 28 (53 ± 8) DM2 | 1.5T SPAMM TR: 35–45 ms ST:8 mm SR: In-plane 1 mm/pixel | 108 ± 41 | 71 ± 20 * | E/A 1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 |
- | Singh [30] 2016 | 15 (66 ± 10) Moderate to severe AS | 3T SPAMM TR: 46 ST: 8 mm SR: NR | 79 ± 15 | Lateral E/e′ 11 ± 3 | ||
- | Singh [31] 2015 | 8 (67 ± 8) 10 (67 ± 9) Moderate-Severe AS | 1.5T & 3T CSAPMM & SPAMM TR: 42 & 46 ST: 6&8 mm SR: NR | 100 ± 31 82 ± 26 | No | ||
- | Schiros [32] 2014 | 40 (42 ± 13) Healthy | 60 (55 ± 12) AH | 1.5T SPAMM TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 256 × 128 FoV 40 × 40 | 101 ± 28 | 79 ± 27 * | No |
Peak mid-ventricular strain rate (% s−1) | Musa [33] 2017 | 52 (81 ± 6) Severe AS | 1.5T CSPAMM TR: NR ST: 10 mm SR: matrix 128 × 128 FoV 300 mm | 2.2 ± 1.5 | LVEDP; see text | ||
Peak Longitudinal strain rate (% s−1) | Fonseca [29] 2004 | 31 (47 ± 24) Healthy | 28 (53 ± 8) AM2 | See above | 92 ± 37 | 63 ± 2 | See above |
- | Schiros [32] 2014 | 40 (42 ± 13) Healthy | 60 (55 ± 12) AH | See above | 104 ± 32 | 79 ± 30 | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Control, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time to peak untwist | Stuber [12] 1999 | 11 (34 ± 9) Healthy | 12 (58 ± 13) AS | 1.5T CSPAMM TR:35 ms ST: 6 mm SR: matrix 256 × 256 FoV 360 mm | 47 ± 23 ms | 88 ± 19 ms * | Invasive (Figure 2) |
- | Nagel [26] 2000 | 12 (29 ± 6) Healthy | 13 (61 ± 12) AS | 1.5T CSPAMM TR 35 ms ST: 6–8 mm SR: In-plane pixel 1.4 × 1.4 mm | 56 ± 25 ms | 103 ± 28 ms * | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Control, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator ^ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Normalized peak early torsion shear angle vs. volume change ◊ | Sharifov [13] 2015 | 18 (62 ± 5) Patients∆ with low invasive LV pressure | 18 (60 ± 8) Patients ∆ with high invasive LV pressure | 1.5T SPAMM TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 256 × 128 FoV 40 | 3.6 ± 1.6 | 7.6 ± 4.2 * | Invasive (Figure 2) |
- | Schiros [32] 2014 | 40 (42 ± 13) Healthy | 60 (55 ± 12) AH | 1.5T SPAMM TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 256 × 128 FoV 40 × 40 | 6.3 ± 3.9 | 10.5 ± 8.5 * | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameters | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator ^ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ePFR (mL s−1) | Maceira [36] 2006 | 20 (20–29), Healthy young | 20 (70–79), Healthy elderly | 1.5T TR: 22 ± 1 ms ST:7 mm SR: In-plane pixel size 2.1 × 1.3 mm Phases: NR | 720 ± 143 | 276 ± 143 * | No |
- | Aquaro [14] 2018 | 20 (51 ± 16), Healthy. Normal DD ◊. | 40 (54 ± 18), Reduced DD ◊. Various diseases | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 224 × 224 FoV 400 mm Phases: 30 | 375 ± 63 | DD I: 247 ± 47 * DD II: 325 ± 92 * DD III: 353 ± 92 | Echo-Doppler (Figure 2) |
- | Gao [15] 2019 | 26 (65 ± 10), Patients with unexplained dyspnea | 25 (69 ± 8), HFpEF | 3T TR: NR ST:8 mm SR: matrix 232 × 219 FoV: NR Phases: NR | 253 ± 63 | 222 ± 66 | LVEDP < 16, E/e′ 9.4 ± 1.4 vs. LVEDP ≥ 16, E/e′ 12.7 ± 3.1 |
- | Graca [30] 2014 | 21 (55 ± 7), Normo-glycemic controls | 41 (58 ± 7), DM2 | 3T TR:25–40 ms ST:8 mm SR: Matrix 256 × 156 Pixel size 2.1 × 1.6 mm Phases: 25 | 376 ± 103 | 293 ± 52 * | No |
- | Chacho [31] 2016 | 20 (44–56), Healthy | 41 (45–57), HCM 21 (47–61), AH | 1.5T TR: 50 ms ST:8 mm SR: Matrix 256 × 256 FoV 280–340 mm Phases: 25 | 445 (372–532) | HCM 414 (349–536) AH 395 (356–528) | No |
- | Rodriguez-Granillo [29] 2012 | 25 (57 ± 15) Healthy | 25 (62 ± 12) IHD | 3T TR:49.3 ms ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 144 × 157 FoV 320 mm Phases 30 | 316 ± 126 | 252 ± 98 * | No |
- | Nacif [37] 2016 | 66 (67 ± 9) Normal DD ◊◊ | 15 (64 ± 10) Reduced DD ◊◊ | 1.5T TR: 30 ± 5 ms ST:8 mm SR: Matrix 205 × 256 FoV 360 mm Phases 30 | 189 ± 66 | 214 ± 72 | Average E/e′ 7.3 ± 1.8 vs. 14.2 ± 5.4 |
Dobutamine stress ePFR | Ahtarovski [26] 2012 | 20 (20–30) Healthy young | 20 (60–70) Healthy Elderly | 1.5T TR:NR ST:7 mm SR: Matrix 192 × 162 FoV 300–360 mm Phases 25 | Increase by 72 ± 24% | Increase by 20 ± 9% * | No |
Glycol-pyrrolate stress ePFR | Ahtarovski [26] 2012 | 20 (20–30) Healthy young | 20 (60–70) Healthy elderly | See above | Increase by 22 ± 10% | Decrease by −13 ± 9% * | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ePFR/ LVEDV (s−1) | Maceira [36] 2006 | 20 (20–29) Healthy young | 20 (70–79) Healthy elderly | 1.5T TR: 22 ± 1 ms ST:7 mm SR: In-plane pixel size 2.1 × 1.3 mm Phases: NR | 4.8 ± 0.8 | 2.3 ± 0.8 * | No |
- | Schiros [32] 2014 | 40 (42 ± 13) Healthy | 60 (55 ± 12) AH | 1.5T TR: NR ST:8 mm SR: matrix 256 × 128 FoV 40 × 40 cm Phases: 20 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 2.5 ± 0.7 * | No |
- | Gupta [44] 2015 | 45 (41 ± 13) Healthy | 15 (54 ± 6) AH | 1.5T TR: NR ST:8 mm SR: matrix 256 × 128 FoV 40 × 40 cm Phases 20 | 3.1 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 0.8 * | No |
- | Rodriguez-Granillo [43] 2012 | 25 (57 ± 15) Healthy | 25 (62 ± 12) IHD | 3T TR:49.3 ms ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 144 × 157 FoV 320 mm Phases 30 | 3.3 ± 1.5 | 1.6 ± 1.2 * | No |
- | Gao [15] 2019 | 26 (65 ± 10), Patients with unexplained dyspnea | 25 (69 ± 8), HFpEF | 3.0T TR: NR ST:8 mm SR: matrix 232 × 219 FoV: NR Phases: NR | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 2.1 ± 0.8 * | Echo-Doppler. (Figure 2) |
- | Hieda [16] 2017 | 12 (65–77) Healthy | 10 (62–85) HFpEF | 1.5T TR:39 ms ST: NR SR: NR Phases: NR | 3.6 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 0.9 * | Invasive and echo-Doppler (Figure 2) |
- | Chacho [41] 2016 | 20 (44–56) Healthy | HCM 41 (45–57) AH 21 (47–61) | 1.5T TR: 50 ms ST:8 mm SR: Matrix 256 × 256 FoV 28–34 × 28–34 cm Phases: 25 | 2.9 (2.6–3.2) | HCM 2.7 (2.3–3.3), AH 2.7 (2.2–3.1) | No |
- | Graca [42] 2014 | 21 (55 ± 7) Healthy | 41 (58 ± 7) DM2 | 3T TR 25–40 ms ST:8 mm SR: matrix 256 × 156 Pixel size 2.1 × 1.6 mm Phases 25 | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 3.1 ± 0.7 | No |
- | Nacif [17] 2016 | 66 (67 ± 9) Normal DD ◊◊ | 15 (64 ± 10) Reduced DD ◊ | 1.5T TR: 30 ± 5 ms ST:8 mm SR: Matrix 205 × 256 FoV 36 cm Phases: 30 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.4 * | Echo-Doppler: (Figure 2) |
Parameter | Author, Year | n (Age #), Controls | n (Age #), Patients | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator ^ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ePFR/ aPFR | Maceira [36] 2006 | 20 (20–29) Healthy young | 20 (70–79) Healthy elderly | 1.5T TR: 22 ± 1 ms ST:7 mm SR: In-plane pixel 2.1 × 1.3 mm Phases: NR | 3.0 ± 0.34 | 0.5 ± 0.34* | No |
Parikh [39] 2017 | 16 (60–69) Healthy | 15 (60–69) AH | 3T TR: NR ST: NR SR: NR Phases: NR | 1.5 ± 0.7 | 1.4 ± 0.4 | No | |
Kawaji [45] 2009 | 51 (41 ± 14) Normal DD ◊◊ | 50 (64 ± 14) Reduced DD ◊ | 1.5T TR: 36 ± 10 ST: 6 mm SR: in-plane pixel 1.9 × 1.4 mm Phases: NR | 3.1 ± 1.6 | 1.6 ± 1.1 * | Average E/e′ 7 ± 3 vs. 15 ± 10 |
Parameter | Author, Year | n (Age #), Controls | n (Age #), Patients | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator ^ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA maximum volume/ BSA (mL m−2) | Maceira [49] 2010 | 120 (20–80) Healthy | 1.5T TR: 21 ± 1 ST:5 mm SR: in-plane pixel 2.1 × 1.3 mm Phases: NR From Short axis | 40 ± 7 | No | ||
- | Khan [65] 2019 | 85 (39 ± 12) Healthy | 10,890 (48–60) Various diseases | For controls 1.5T or 3T TR: NR ST: 6 mm SR: in-plan 1.5 × 1.5 × 2.1 mm Phases: 25–30 From 2 ch and 4 ch | 21–52 | LA dilatation Mild 52–62 Moderate 63–73 Severe >73 | No |
- | Gao [15] 2019 | 26 (65 ± 10), Patients with unexplained dyspnea | 25 (69 ± 8), HFpEF | 3T TR: NR ST:8 mm SR: matrix 232 × 219 FoV; NR Phases: NR From: NR | 36 ± 12 | 46 ± 12 * | LVEDP < 16, E/e′ 9.4 ± 1.4 vs. LVEDP ≥ 16, E/e′ 12.7 ± 3.1 |
- | Janwanishst-aporn [54] 2016 | 111 (71 ± 10) AH | 1.5T TR: NR ST: NR SR:1.25 × 1.25 × 8 mm2 Phases 25 From 2 ch and 4 ch | 55 ± 16 | No | ||
- | Kowallick [55] 2016 | 23 (55 ± 11) Healthy | 73 (59 ± 13) HCM | 1.5T or 3T TR: 25–35 ms ST: NR SR: NR Phases 30 From 2 ch and 4 ch | 38 ± 7 | 52 ± 12 * | No |
- | Shang [59] 2017 | 35 (52 ± 13) Healthy | 50 (55 ± 9) DM2 | 3T TR: NR ST:NR SR: NR Phases: NR From 2 ch and 4 ch | 35 ± 12 | 38 ± 11 | No |
- | Kwong [61] 2015 | 37 (59 IQR 21) AH | 22 (66 IQR 17) Amyloidosis | 1.5T TR: 46 ST: 8 mm SR: in-plane pixel 1.5 × 1.8 or 1.8 × 2.1 mm Phases: NR From 2 ch and 4 ch | 46 IQR 47 | 60 IQR 17 * | Echo-Doppler: See text |
- | Hinojar [57] 2019 | 75 (53 ± 16) Various diseases but none cardiac | 75 (55 ± 15) HCM | 1.5T TR: NR ST: NR SR: 1.8 × 1.8 × 8 mm Phases: NR From: NR | 44 ± 10 | 63 ± 20 | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | n (Age #), Controls | n (Age #), Patients | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA total emptying fraction (%) | Maceira [53] 2016 | 20 (20–29) Healthy young | 20 (70–79) Healthy elderly | 1.5T TR: 21 ± 1 ST:5 mm SR: IN-plane pixel 2.1 × 1.3 mm Phases: NR From Short axis | 62 ± 6 | 55 ± 5 * | No |
- | Aquaro [14] 2018 | 20 (51 ± 16), Healthy. Normal DD ◊. | 40 (54 ± 18), reduced DD ◊. Various diseases | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 224 × 224 FoV 400 mm Phases: 30 From short axis | 48 ± 5 | DD I: 44 ± 5 * DD II: 25 ± 8 * DD III: 18 ± 12 * | Echo-Doppler (Figure 2) |
- | Leng [19] 2018 | 50 (56 ± 13) Healthy | 30 (55 ± 14) HCM 30 (62 ± 11) HFpEF◊◊ | 3.0T TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 240 × 240 FoV 300 mm Phases: 30–40 From 2 ch and 4 ch | 59 ± 5 | HCM 51 ± 7 * HFpEF 48 ± 7 * | Figure 2 |
- | Kowallick [55] 2016 | 23 (55 ± 11) Healthy | 73 (59 ± 13) HCM | See Table 8 | 59 ± 6 | 51 ± 12 * | No |
- | Shang [59] 2017 | 35 (52 ± 13) Healthy | 50 (55 ± 9) DM2 | See Table 8 | 59 ± 8 | 52 ± 9 | No |
- | Kwong [61] (2015) | 37 (59 IQR 21) AH | 22 (66 IQR 17) Amyloidosis | See Table 8 | 40 ± 14 | 19 ± 14 * | Echo-Doppler: See text |
- | Kowallick [18] 2014 | 10 (23–51) Healthy | 10 (44–73) HCM 10 (58–82) HfpEF ◊ | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 6–8 mm SR: Matrix 192–256 × 164–220 FoV 260–400 × 230 × 340 Phases: NR From 2 ch × 4 ch | 61 ± 6 | 59 ± 6 53 ± 7 * | Figure 2 |
- | Hinojar [57] 2019 | 75 (53 ± 16) Various diseases but none cardiac | 75 (55 ± 15) HCM | See Table 8 | 55 ± 9 | 40 ± 16 * | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA passive emptying fraction (%) | Maceira [53] 2016 | 20 (20–29) Healthy young | 20 (70–79) Healthy elderly | See Table 9 | 47 ± 6 | 29 ± 6 * | No |
- | Kowallick [55] 2016 | 23 (55 ± 11) Healthy | 73 (59 ± 13) HCM | See Table 8 | 32 ± 7 | 22 ± 10 * | No |
- | Shang [59] 2017 | 35 (52 ± 13) Healthy | 50 (55 ± 9) DM2 | See Table 8 | 39 ± 11 | 29 ± 10 * | No |
- | Kwong [61] (2015) | 37 (59 IQR 21) AH | 22 (66 IQR 17) Amyloidosis | See Table 8 | 18 ± 12 | 11 ± 13 | Echo-Doppler: See text |
- | Kowallick [18] 2014 | 10 (23–51) Healthy | 10 (44–73) HCM 10 (58–82) HFpEF◊ | See Table 9 | 35 ± 9 | HCM 26 ± 6 * HFpEF 24 ± 4 * | Figure 2 |
- | Leng [19] 2018 | 50 (56 ± 13) Healthy | 30 (55 ± 14) HCM 30 (62 ± 11) HFpEF◊◊ | See Table 9 | 27 ± 7 | HCM 24 ± 7 * HFpEF 19 ± 7 * | Figure 2 |
- | Hinojar [57] 2019 | 75 (53 ± 16) Various diseases but none cardiac | 75 (55 ± 15) HCM | See Table 8 | 24 ± 13 | 16 ± 11 | No |
During dobutamine (%) | Ahtarovski [40] 2012 | 20 (20–30) Healthy Young | 20 (60–70) Healthy elderly | 1.5T TR:NR ST: 7 mm SR: Matix 192 × 162 FoV 300–360 mm Phases: 25 From Short axis | No change | 22 ± 9 * Decreased from 30 ± 7 | No |
- | Farzaneh-Far [63] 2011 | 108 (61 ± 12) Low vs. high MACE incidence | 1.5T TR:45–50 ms ST: 8 mm SR: In-plane pixel 1.5 × 2 mm Phases: NR From 2 ch and 4 ch | Decrease of >11 from rest * | No | ||
During glycol-pyrrolate (%) | Ahtarov-ski [40] 2012 | 20 (20–30) Healthy young | 20 (60–70) Healthy elderly | See above | No change | 16 ± 9 * Decrease from 30 ± 7 | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LA active emptying fraction (%) | Maceira [53] 2016 | 20 (20–29) Healthy young | 20 (70–79) Healthy elderly | See above | 32 ± 7 | 39 ± 7 * | No |
- | Kowallick [55] 2016 | 23 (55 ± 11) Healthy | 73 (59 ± 13) HCM | 1.5T or 3T TR: 25–35 ms ST: NR SR: NR Phases: 30 From VLA and 4 ch | 40 ± 8 | 38 ± 10 | No |
- | Kwong [61] (2015) | 37 (59 IQR 21) AH | 22 (66 IQR 17) Amyloidosis | 1.5T TR: 46 ST: 8 mm SR: in-plane pixel 1.5 × 1.8 or 1.8 × 2.1 mm Phases: NR From 2 ch × 4 ch | 28 ± 13 | 10 ± 11 * | Echo-Doppler: See text |
- | Kowallick [18] 2014 | 10 (23–51) Healthy | 10 (44–73) HCM 10 (58–82) HFpEF | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 6–8 mm SR: Matrix 192–256 × 164–220 FoV 260–400 × 230 × 340 Phases: NR From 2 ch × 4 ch | 26 ± 7 | HCM 34 ± 6 * HFpEF 29 ± 7 | No |
- | Leng [19] 2018 | 50 (56 ± 13) | 30 (55 ± 14) HCM 30 (62 ± 11) HFpEF | 3.0T TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 240 × 240 FoV 300 mm Phases:30–40 From 2 ch and 4 ch | 43 ± 8 | HCM 36 ± 7 * HFpEF 36 ± 7 * | No |
- | Hinojar [57] 2019 | 75 (53 ± 16) Various diseases but none cardiac | 75 (55 ± 15) HCM | 1.5T TR: NR ST: NR SR: 1.8 × 1.8 × 8 mm Phases: NR From: NR | 41 ± 11 | 27 ± 14 | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #), | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Radial (s−1) | Andre [87] 2015 | 150 (46 ± 14) Healthy | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 8 mm SR: In-plane pixel 2.2 × 2.2 mm Phases 35 From Short axis stack | −2.1 ± 0.5 | No | ||
- | Shang [88] 2019 | 36 (51 ± 12) Healthy | 53 (54 ± 8) DM2 | 3T TR: NR ST: 6 mm SR: matrix 179 × 256 FoV 325 × 400 mm2 Phases 25 From 4 ch | −2.8 ± 1.0 | −2.7 ± 0.9 | No |
Circumferential-endocardial (s−1) | Andre [87] 2015 | 150 (46 ± 14) Healthy | See above | 2.1 ± 0.6 | No | ||
- | Nucifora [89] 2015 | 15 (46 ± 12) Healthy | 45 (48 ± 17) HCM | 1.5T TR:30 ms ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 205 × 256 FoV 340 × 340 mm Phases: NR from: NR | 1.5 ± 0.8 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | No |
Circumferential-myocardial ◊ (s−1) | Andre [87] 2015 | 150 (46 ± 14) Healthy | See above | 1.7 ± 0.5 | No | ||
- | Singh [31] 2015 | 8 (67 ± 8) 10 (67 ± 9) AS | 1.5T & 3T CSAPMM & SPAMM TR: 42 & 46 ST: 6 & 8 mm SR: NR Phases: NR from: Apical, mid-ventricular and basal slice | 1.3 ± 0.3 | Tagging CMR; 1.0 ± 0.3 | ||
- | Mahmod [20] (2018) | 14 (69 ± 6) Healthy | 27 (72 ± 7) HFpEF | 3T TR: NR ST:NR SR:NR Phases: NR from: Short axis stack | 110 ± 28 % s−1 | 85 ± 27 % s−1 * | Figure 2 |
- | Shang [88] 2019 | 36 (51 ± 12) Healthy | 53 (54 ± 8) DM2 | 3T TR: NR ST: 6 mm SR: matrix 179 × 256 FoV 325 × 400 mm2 Phases 25 From mid-ventricular short axis slice | 1.4 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | No |
Longitudinal-endocardial (s−1) | Andre [87] 2015 | 150 (46 ± 14) Healthy | See above. But from: 4 ch | 1.8 (1.5–2.2) | No | ||
Longitudinal-myocardial ◊ (s−1) | Andre [87] 2015 | 150 (46 ± 14) Healthy | See above. But from: 4 ch | 1.6 (1.4–2.0) | No | ||
- | Shang [88] 2019 | 36 (51 ± 12) Healthy | 53 (54 ± 8) DM2 | See above. But from: 4 ch | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.2 * | No |
Normalized Circumferential-endocardial (s−1) | Nucifora [89] 2015 | 15 (46 ± 12) Healthy | 45 (48 ± 17) HCM | See Above | −1.1 ± 0.2 | −0.9 ± 0.3 * | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total longitudinal strain (%) | Evin [21] 2016 | 28 (25 ± 3) Healthy young | 30 (59 ± 7) Healthy elderly | 1.5T TR: 20–30 ms ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 260 × 192 FoV: NR Phases: NR | 26 ± 6 | 21 ± 6 * | Figure 2 |
- | Kowallick [18] 2014 | 10 (23–51) Healthy | 10 (44–73) HCM 10 (58–82) HFpEF◊ | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 6–8 mm SR: Matrix 192–256 × 164–220 FoV 260–400 × 230 × 340 Phases: NR | 29 ± 5 | 22 ± 6* HCM 16 ± 6 * HFpEF | Figure 2 |
- | Evin [94] 2015 | 10 (64 ± 6) Healthy | 10 (73 ± 15) AS | See above | 23 ± 5 | 12 ± 7 * | No |
- | Leng [19] 2018 | 50 (56 ± 13) Healthy | 30 (55 ± 14) HCM 30 (62 ± 11) HFpEF | 3.0T TR: ST: 8 mm SR: matrix 240 × 240 FoV 300 mm Phases 30–40 | 35 ± 5 | HCM 27 ± 5 * HFpEF 24 ± 5 * | No |
- | Von Roeder [22] 2017 | 12 (58 ± 9) Various diseases | 22 (65 ± 9) HFpEF◊ | 1.5T TR: NR ST: 8–10 mm SR: Voxel size 1.25 × 1.25 × 8 mm2 Phases: NR | 29 ± 6 | 22 ± 7 | Figure 2 |
- | Hinojar [57] 2019 | 75 (53 ± 16) Various diseases | 75 (55 ± 15) HCM | 1.5T TR: NR ST: NR SR: 1.8 × 1.8 × 8 mm Phases: NR | 30 ± 6 | 17 ± 8 | No |
Parameter | Author, Year | Controls, n (Age #) | Patients, n (Age #) | Sequence Parameter | Estimate, Controls | Estimate, Patients | Comparator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total longitudinal strain rate (% s−1) | Evin [21] 2016 | 28 (25 ± 3) Healthy young | 30 (59 ± 7) Healthy elderly | See Table 13 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.2* | E/e′ 5 ± 1 vs. 7 ± 2 |
- | Kowallick [18] 2014 | 10 (23–51) Healhy | 10 (44–73) HCM 10 (58–82) HFpEF | See Table 13 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.2 * 0.8 ± 0.3 * | No |
- | Evin [94] 2015 | 10 (64 ± 6) Healthy elderly | 10 (73 ± 15) AS | See Table 13 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.5 * | No |
- | Leng [19] 2018 | 50 (56 ± 13) Healthy | 30 (55 ± 14) HCM 30 (62 ± 11) HFpEF | See Table 13 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | HCM 1.3 ± 0.3 * HFpEF 1.1 ± 0.2 * | No |
- | Von Roeder [22] 2017 | 12 (58 ± 9) Various diseases | 22 (65 ± 9) HFpEF ◊ | See Table 13 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | E/e′ 7.2 ± 1 vs. 15 ± 4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bojer, A.S.; Soerensen, M.H.; Gaede, P.; Myerson, S.; Madsen, P.L. Left Ventricular Diastolic Function Studied with Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Relation to Established Measures of Diastolic Function. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071282
Bojer AS, Soerensen MH, Gaede P, Myerson S, Madsen PL. Left Ventricular Diastolic Function Studied with Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Relation to Established Measures of Diastolic Function. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(7):1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071282
Chicago/Turabian StyleBojer, Annemie Stege, Martin Heyn Soerensen, Peter Gaede, Saul Myerson, and Per Lav Madsen. 2021. "Left Ventricular Diastolic Function Studied with Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Relation to Established Measures of Diastolic Function" Diagnostics 11, no. 7: 1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071282