Highlights of the Virtual Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2022 Scientific Conference: CMR: improving cardiovascular care around the world

Ojha, Vineeta; Khalique, Omar; Khurana, Rishabh; Lorenzatti, Daniel; Leung, Steve W.; Lawton, Benny; Slesnick, Timothy C.; Cavalcante, Joao C.; Ducci, Chiara-Bucciarelli; Patel, Amit R.; Prieto, Claudia; Plein, Sven; Raman, Subha V.; Salerno, Michael; Parwani, Purvi

doi:10.1186/s12968-022-00870-4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the high temporal and soft tissue resolution, CMR imaging is considered the gold standard for assessing myocardial structure and function [ 16 ]. Novel CMR postprocessing tool, such as CMR feature tracking (CMR-FT), significantly improves RV functional assessment [ 17 , 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The right ventricular dysfunction and ventricular interdependence in patients with DM: assessment using cardiac MR feature tracking

Shi

Yang

Guo

et al. 2023

Cardiovasc Diabetol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To investigate the difference of right ventricular (RV) structural and functional alteration in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and the ventricular interdependence in these patients, using cardiac MR (CMR) feature tracking. Methods From December 2016 to February 2022, 148 clinically diagnosed patients with DM who underwent cardiac MR (CMR) in our hospital were consecutively recruited. Fifty-four healthy individuals were included as normal controls. Biventricular strains, including left/right ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-/RVGLS), left/right ventricular global circumferential strain (LV-/RVGCS), left/right ventricular global radial strain (LV-/RVGRS) were evaluated, and compared between patients with DM and healthy controls. Multiple linear regression and mediation analyses were used to evaluate DM's direct and indirect effects on RV strains. Results No differences were found in age (56.98 ± 10.98 vs. 57.37 ± 8.41, p = 0.985), sex (53.4% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.715), and body surface area (BSA) (1.70 ± 0.21 vs. 1.69 ± 0.17, p = 0.472) between DM and normal controls. Patients with DM had decreased RVGLS (− 21.86 ± 4.14 vs. − 24.49 ± 4.47, p = 0.001), RVGCS (− 13.16 ± 3.86 vs. − 14.92 ± 3.08, p = 0.011), and no decrease was found in RVGRS (22.62 ± 8.11 vs. 23.15 ± 9.05, p = 0.743) in patients with DM compared with normal controls. The difference in RVGLS between normal controls and patients with DM was totally mediated by LVGLS (indirect effecting: 0.655, bootstrapped 95%CI 0.138–0.265). The difference in RVGCS between normal controls and DM was partly mediated by the LVGLS (indirect effecting: 0.336, bootstrapped 95%CI 0.002–0.820) and LVGCS (indirect effecting: 0.368, bootstrapped 95%CI 0.028–0.855). Conclusions In the patients with DM and preserved LVEF, the difference in RVGLS between DM and normal controls was totally mediated by LVGLS. Although there were partly mediating effects of LVGLS and LVGCS, the decrease in RVGCS might be directly affected by the DM.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%