Prognostic value of biventricular mechanical parameters assessed using cardiac magnetic resonance feature‐tracking analysis to predict future cardiac events. Issue 4 (17th August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yang, Li Tan; Yamashita, Eiji; Nagata, Yasufumi; Kado, Yuichiro; Oshima, Shigeru; Otsuji, Yutaka; Takeuchi, Masaaki
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 45:Issue 4(2017)
• Page Start: 1034
• Page End: 1045
• Publication Date: 2016-08-17
• Subjects: cardiac magnetic resonance imaging -- feature tracking -- prognosis; Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25433
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To study and compare the prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (MR‐FT) of biventricular strain parameters with a conventional method. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 364 patients undergoing clinically indicated cardiac MR examinations (1.5 or 3T scanner). Standard steady‐state free precession (SSFP) images were used for analysis. Left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF) were measured using conventional disk‐area summation methods. Biventricular strain parameters were measured using MR‐FT. All patients were followed to record major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Results: The correlations between LV volumes and LVEF using both methods were excellent ( r = 0.87–0.98). RV strain parameters were modestly correlated with RVEF ( r = 0.44–0.63). During a median follow‐up of 15 months, 36 patients developed MACEs. All MR‐FT‐derived parameters except for RV global longitudinal strain were significantly associated with future MACEs ( P < 0.05) in univariate analysis. In stepwise Cox proportional hazard models, RV global radial strain (RVGRS) provided incremental prognostic value in models adjusted for age, gender, conventional LVEF (hazard ratio 0.93; P = 0.029) or RVEF (hazard ratio 0.93; P = 0.038). LV global transverse strain (LVGTS) also offered additional value over age, gender, conventional LVEF (hazard ratio 0.94; P = 0.041), or RVEF (hazard ratio 0.94; P = 0.004). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed significant survival differences in subgroups stratified by the median value of LVGTS, RVGRS, and LVEF using MR‐FT (all log‐rank P < 0.05). Conclusion: Deformation analysis of both ventricles using MR‐FT provided significant prognostic power similar to parameters obtained using conventional methods. MR‐FT is a promising alternative both for ventricular chamber quantification and for providing information of future cardiac events. Level of Evidence: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:1034–1045