Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in the Assessment of Left-Ventricle Remodeling: Differences Implying Clinical Decision.

Maciej Haberka, Monika Starzak, Grzegorz Smolka, Wojciech Wojakowski, Zbigniew Gąsior
Author Information
  1. Maciej Haberka: Department of Cardiology, School of Health Sciences (SHS), Medical University of Silesia, 40-635 Katowice, Poland. ORCID
  2. Monika Starzak: Department of Internal Medicine, Angiology and Physical Medicine, Specialistic Hospital No. 2, 41-902 Bytom, Poland.
  3. Grzegorz Smolka: Department of Cardiology, School of Health Sciences (SHS), Medical University of Silesia, 40-635 Katowice, Poland.
  4. Wojciech Wojakowski: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, 40-635 Katowice, Poland. ORCID
  5. Zbigniew Gąsior: Department of Cardiology, School of Health Sciences (SHS), Medical University of Silesia, 40-635 Katowice, Poland.

Abstract

: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) are the most important modalities used in clinical practice to assess cardiac chambers. However, different imaging techniques may affect their results and conclusions. The aim of our study was to compare left-ventricle (LV) remodeling assessed using TTE and CMR in the context of various cardiovascular diseases. : A total of 202 consecutive patients sent for an elective cardiovascular diagnosis were scheduled for a 2D TTE and CMR, performed within 2 weeks. The study group was divided and analyzed based on the clinical indications for CMR, including coronary artery disease, heart failure, native aortic valve regurgitation or paravalvular leak after aortic valve replacement, or cardiomyopathies. : The mean LV mass index (LVMi) values calculated using TTE were significantly larger (127.1 ± 44.5 g/m²) compared to the LVMi assessed using CMR (77.1 ± 26.2 g/m²; < 0.001). The LV end-diastolic volumes assessed using TTE were underestimated for all the study patients (78.6 ± 43 mL vs. 100.5 ± 39 mL; < 0.0001) and subgroups, but a statistical trend was observed in patients with cardiomyopathy. Those differences in single parameters led to differences in LV remodeling and the final treatment decision. CMR and TTE provided similar conclusions on LV systolic dysfunction in 68% of the patients. : Our results showed that the greater the degree of LV remodeling and dysfunction, the greater the difference between the modalities. Therefore, CMR should be introduced into routine clinical practice, especially for patients undergoing LV remodeling, which may change clinical decisions in a considerable number of cases.

Keywords

References

  1. J Hum Hypertens. 2009 Nov;23(11):728-34 [PMID: 19322202]
  2. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Oct;9(10): [PMID: 27729359]
  3. Eur Heart J. 2022 Feb 12;43(7):561-632 [PMID: 34453165]
  4. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Dec 01;18(12):1301-1310 [PMID: 29045589]
  5. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(5):775-82 [PMID: 16353438]
  6. Eur Heart J. 2021 Dec 21;42(48):4901 [PMID: 34649282]
  7. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010 Oct;11(9):793-800 [PMID: 20525984]
  8. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jun 8;55(23):2614-62 [PMID: 20513610]
  9. Eur Radiol Exp. 2021 Mar 25;5(1):14 [PMID: 33763757]
  10. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Dec 14;22(1):87 [PMID: 33308262]
  11. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jan;36(1):91-100 [PMID: 31414256]
  12. Hypertension. 2010 Jul;56(1):91-8 [PMID: 20458004]
  13. Malawi Med J. 2019 Sep;31(3):241-245 [PMID: 31839897]
  14. J Vis Exp. 2021 Dec 14;(178): [PMID: 35259148]
  15. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar;14(3):240-6 [PMID: 22815376]
  16. Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200 [PMID: 27206819]
  17. Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791 [PMID: 28886619]
  18. Neth Heart J. 2014 Oct;22(10):449-55 [PMID: 25187012]
  19. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Jul 28;14:50 [PMID: 22839417]
  20. Med Pharm Rep. 2019 Oct;92(4):326-336 [PMID: 31750431]
  21. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):233-70 [PMID: 25712077]
  22. Kardiol Pol. 2021;79(9):965-971 [PMID: 34176113]
  23. J Clin Anesth. 1992 Jan-Feb;4(1):4-10 [PMID: 1540367]
  24. Med Sci Monit. 2012 Mar;18(3):MT19-25 [PMID: 22367134]
  25. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2021 Mar 22;23(1):31 [PMID: 33745455]
  26. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2019 Nov 29;129(11):738-746 [PMID: 31479091]
  27. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Dec;11(12):1854-1878 [PMID: 30522687]
  28. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 1999;1(1):7-21 [PMID: 11550343]
  29. Am J Cardiol. 2012 Dec 1;110(11):1679-86 [PMID: 22917553]
  30. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Oct 08;14:69 [PMID: 23043729]
  31. Arch Pathol. 1974 Jan;97(1):13-21 [PMID: 4271261]
  32. Am J Cardiol. 2002 Jul 1;90(1):29-34 [PMID: 12088775]
  33. Eur Heart J. 2023 Oct 1;44(37):3503-3626 [PMID: 37622657]
  34. Am J Cardiol. 2013 Apr 15;111(8):1175-9 [PMID: 23375599]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CMRLVTTEremodelingpatients:clinicalleft-ventricleusing±cardiovascularstudyassessedechocardiographymagneticresonancemodalitiespracticecardiacmayresultsconclusions2aorticvalvemassLVMi15g/m²<0mLdifferencesdysfunctiongreaterTransthoracicimportantusedassesschambersHoweverdifferentimagingtechniquesaffectaimcomparecontextvariousdiseasestotal202consecutivesentelectivediagnosisscheduled2Dperformedwithinweeksgroupdividedanalyzedbasedindicationsincludingcoronaryarterydiseaseheartfailurenativeregurgitationparavalvularleakreplacementcardiomyopathiesmeanindexvaluescalculatedsignificantlylarger12744compared7726001end-diastolicvolumesunderestimated78643vs100390001subgroupsstatisticaltrendobservedcardiomyopathysingleparametersledfinaltreatmentdecisionprovidedsimilarsystolic68%showeddegreedifferenceThereforeintroducedroutineespeciallyundergoingchangedecisionsconsiderablenumbercasesEchocardiographyCardiacMagneticResonanceAssessmentLeft-VentricleRemodeling:DifferencesImplyingClinicalDecisionfunction

Similar Articles

Cited By