Logo image
Non-invasive intraventricular pressure differences estimated with cardiac MRI in subjects without heart failure and with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Non-invasive intraventricular pressure differences estimated with cardiac MRI in subjects without heart failure and with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Francisco Londono-Hoyos, Patrick Segers, Zeba Hashmath, Garrett Oldland, Maheshwara Reddy Koppula, Khuzaima Javaid, Rachana Miller, Rushikkumar Bhuva, Izzah Vasim, Ali Tariq, …
Open heart, Vol.6(2), p.e001088
10/01/2019
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001088
PMCID: PMC6802988
PMID: 31673389
url
https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2019-001088View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Objective Non-invasive assessment of left ventricular (LV) diastolic and systolic function is important to better understand physiological abnormalities in heart failure (HF). The spatiotemporal pattern of LV blood flow velocities during systole and diastole can be used to estimate intraventricular pressure differences (IVPDs). We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of an MRI-based method to calculate systolic and diastolic IVPDs in subjects without heart failure (No-HF), and with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We studied 159 subjects without HF, 47 subjects with HFrEF and 32 subjects with HFpEF. Diastolic and systolic intraventricular flow was measured using two-dimensional in-plane phase-contrast MRI. The Euler equation was solved to compute IVPDs in diastole (mitral base to apex) and systole (apex to LV outflow tract). Results Subjects with HFpEF demonstrated a higher magnitude of the early diastolic reversal of IVPDs (-1.30 mm Hg) compared with the No-HF group (-0.78 mm Hg) and the HFrEF group (-0.75 mm Hg; analysis of variance p=0.01). These differences persisted after adjustment for clinical variables, Doppler-echocardiographic parameters of diastolic filling and measures of LV structure (No-HF=-0.72; HFrEF=-0.87; HFpEF=-1.52 mm Hg; p=0.006). No significant differences in systolic IVPDs were found in adjusted models. IVPD parameters demonstrated only weak correlations with standard Doppler-echocardiographic parameters. Conclusions Our findings suggest distinct patterns of systolic and diastolic IVPDs in HFpEF and HFrEF, implying differences in the nature of diastolic dysfunction between the HF subtypes.
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Cardiovascular System & Cardiology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Science & Technology

Details

Metrics

Logo image