| 1. |
- Axelsson, Jimmy, et al.
(författare)
-
Ejection fraction in left bundle branch block is disproportionately reduced in relation to amount of myocardial scar
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Electrocardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-0736 .- 1532-8430. ; 51:6, s. 1071-1076
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The relationship between left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV myocardial scar can identify potentially reversible causes of LV dysfunction. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) alters the electrical and mechanical activation of the LV. We hypothesized that the relationship between LVEF and scar extent is different in LBBB compared to controls. Methods: We compared the relationship between LVEF and scar burden between patients with LBBB and scar (n = 83), and patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and scar but no electrocardiographic conduction abnormality (controls, n = 90), who had undergone cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at one of three centers. LVEF (%) was measured in CMR cine images. Scar burden was quantified by CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and expressed as % of LV mass (%LVM). Maximum possible LVEF (LVEFmax) was defined as the function describing the hypotenuse in the LVEF versus myocardial scar extent scatter plot. Dysfunction index was defined as LVEFmax derived from the control cohort minus the measured LVEF. Results: Compared to controls with scar, LBBB with scar had a lower LVEF (median [interquartile range] 27 [19–38] vs 36 [25–50] %, p < 0.001), smaller scar (4 [1–9] vs 11 [6–20] %LVM, p < 0.001), and greater dysfunction index (39 [30–52] vs 21 [12–35] % points, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Among LBBB patients referred for CMR, LVEF is disproportionately reduced in relation to the amount of scar. Dyssynchrony in LBBB may thus impair compensation for loss of contractile myocardium.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klem, Igor, et al.
(författare)
-
Sources of variability in quantification of cardiovascular magnetic resonance infarct size - reproducibility among three core laboratories
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1097-6647. ; 19:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarct (AMI) size depicted by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used as an efficacy endpoint in randomized trials comparing AMI therapies. Infarct size is quantified using manual planimetry (MANUAL), visual scoring (VISUAL), or automated techniques using signal-intensity thresholding (AUTO). Although AUTO is considered the most reproducible, prior studies did not account for the subjective determination of endocardial/epicardial borders, which all methods require. For MANUAL and VISUAL, prior studies did not address how to treat intermediate signal intensities due to partial volume.METHODS: To assess sources of variability, AMI size was measured in 30 patients and 12 controls by 3 core-laboratories using 8 methods, each separated by more than 2 months time (n = 720 evaluations). The methods were: (1,2) AUTOSegment, AUTOFWHM (using Segment software or the full-width-at-half-maximum algorithm, respectively); (3,4) AUTO-UCSegment, AUTO-UCFWHM (user correction for endocardial border pixels, no-reflow, etc.); (5) MANUAL; (6) MANUAL-ISI (adjustment for intermediate signal-intensities); (7) VISUAL; (8) VISUAL-ISI.RESULTS: Mean infarct size varied between 16.8% and 27.2% of LV mass depending on method. Even automated techniques with no user interaction for infarct borders resulted in significant within-patient variability given the need to subjectively trace endocardial/epicardial contours. The coefficient-of-variation (CV) was 10.6% and 14.6% for AUTOSegment and AUTOFWHM, respectively. For manual and visual categories, reproducibility was improved when intermediate signal-intensities were considered (MANUAL-ISI vs MANUAL: CV = 8.3% vs 14.4%; p = 0.03; VISUAL-ISI vs VISUAL: CV = 8.4% vs 10.9%; p = 0.01). For AUTO-UCSegment, MANUAL-ISI, and VISUAL-ISI (best technique in each category) within-patient variability due to the quantification method was less than 10% of total variability, and the required sample sizes for detecting a 5% absolute difference in infarct size were 62, 63, and 62 patients, respectively.CONCLUSION: Among CMR core-laboratories, an important source of variability in infarct size quantification is the subjective delineation of endocardial/epicardial borders. When intermediate signal intensities are considered in manual planimetry and visual scoring, reproducibility and impact on sample size are similar to automated techniques.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wieslander, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
The ability of the electrocardiogram in left bundle branch block to detect myocardial scar determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Electrocardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-0736 .- 1532-8430. ; 51:5, s. 779-786
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: We aimed to improve the electrocardiographic 2009 left bundle branch block (LBBB) Selvester QRS score (2009 LBSS) for scar assessment. Methods: We retrospectively identified 325 LBBB patients with available ECG and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with late gadolinium enhancement from four centers (142 [44%] with CMR scar). Forty-four semi-automatically measured ECG variables pre-selected based on the 2009 LBSS yielded one multivariable model for scar detection and another for scar quantification. Results: The 2009 LBSS achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.66) for scar detection, and R2 = 0.04, p < 0.001, for scar quantification. Multivariable modeling improved scar detection to AUC 0.72 (0.66–0.77) and scar quantification to R2 = 0.21, p < 0.001. Conclusions: The 2009 LBSS detects and quantifies myocardial scar with poor accuracy. Improved models with extensive comparison of ECG and CMR had modest performance, indicating limited room for improvement of the 2009 LBSS.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
