Aims
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. CMR atrial measurements, feature-tracking (CMR-FT), tagging have long been suggested to diagnose HFpEF and potentially complement echocardiography especially when echocardiography is indeterminate. Data supporting the use of atrial measurements, CMR-FT or tagging is absent. Our aim is to conduct a prospective case-control study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CMR atrial volume/area, CMR-FT, and tagging to diagnose HFpEF amongst patients suspected of having HFpEF.
Methods & Results
121 suspected HFpEF patients were prospectively recruited from four centres. Patients underwent echocardiography, CMR, NT-proBNP measurements within 24 hours to diagnose HFpEF. Patients without HFpEF diagnosis underwent catheter pressure measurements or stress echocardiography to confirm HFpEF or non-HFpEF. Area under the curve (AUC) were determined by comparing HFpEF with non-HFpEF patients. 53 HFpEF (median age 78yrs, interquartile range 74-82yrs) and 38 non-HFpEF (median age 70yrs, interquartile range 64-76yrs). CMR left atrial (LA) reservoir strain (ResS), LA area indexed (LAAi) and LA volume indexed (LAVi) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUCs 0.803, 0.815 and 0.776 respectively).
LA ResS, LAAi and LAVi had significantly better diagnostic accuracy than CMR-FT left ventricle (LV)/right ventricle (RV) parameters and tagging (p < 0.01). Tagging circumferential and radial strain had poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.644 and 0.541 respectively).
Conclusion
CMR LA ResS, LAAi and LAVi have the highest diagnostic accuracy to identify HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF patients amongst clinically suspected HFpEF patients. CMR-FT LV/RV parameters and tagging had low diagnostic accuracy to diagnose HFpEF.