Kropidlowski Christian, Meier-Schroers Michael, Kuetting Daniel, Sprinkart Alois, Schild Hans, Thomas Daniel, Homsi Rami
Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020 Feb 12;27:100477. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100477. eCollection 2020 Apr.
A combined assessment of different parameters of cardiovascular (CV) risk and prognosis can be supportive and performed with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Aortic stiffness, epicardial fat volume (EFV), left ventricular (LV) strain and fibrosis were evaluated within a single CMR examination and results were related to the presence of hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM).
20 healthy controls (57.2 ± 8.2 years(y); 26.2 ± 3.9 kg/m), 31 hypertensive patients without DM (59.6 ± 6.7 y; 28.4 ± 4.7 kg/m) and 12 hypertensive patients with DM (58.8 ± 9.9y; 30.7 ± 6.3 kg/m) were examined at 1.5Tesla. Aortic stiffness was evaluated by calculation of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), EFV by a 3D-Dixon sequence. Longitudinal & circumferential systolic myocardial strain (LS; CS) were analyzed and T1-relaxation times (T1) were determined to detect myocardial fibrosis.
EFV was highest in hypertensive patients with diabetes (78.4 ± 28.0 ml/m) followed by only hypertensive patients (64.2 ± 27.3 ml/m) and lowest in controls (50.3 ± 22.7 ml/m; p < 0.05). PWV was higher in hypertensive patients with diabetes (9.8 ± 3.3 m/s) compared to only hypertensive patients (8.6 ± 1.7 m/s; p < 0.05) and to controls (8.1 ± 1.9 m/s; p < 0.05). LS&CS were worse in hypertensive patients with diabetes (LS:-20.9 ± 5.1% and CS: -24.4 ± 5.7%) compared to both only hypertensive patients (LS: -24.7 ± 4.6%; CS: -27.1 ± 5.0%; p < 0.05) and to controls (LS: -25.5 ± 3.8; CS: -28.3 ± 4.1%; p < 0.05). Both hypertensive groups with and without DM had higher T1́s (994.0 ± 43.2 ms; 991.6 ± 35.5 ms) than controls (964.6 ± 40.3 ms; p < 0.05).
CMR revealed increased aortic stiffness and EFV in hypertensive patients, which were even higher in the presence of DM. Also signs of LV myocardial fibrosis and a reduced strain were revealed. These parameters support the assessment of CV risk and prognosis. They can accurately be measured with CMR within a single examination when normally different techniques are needed.
对心血管(CV)风险和预后的不同参数进行联合评估可能具有辅助作用,可通过心脏磁共振成像(CMR)来实现。在单次CMR检查中评估主动脉僵硬度、心外膜脂肪体积(EFV)、左心室(LV)应变和纤维化,并将结果与高血压(HTN)和糖尿病(DM)的存在情况相关联。
对20名健康对照者(年龄57.2±8.2岁;体重指数26.2±3.9kg/m²)、31名无糖尿病的高血压患者(年龄59.6±6.7岁;体重指数28.4±4.7kg/m²)和12名患有糖尿病的高血压患者(年龄58.8±9.9岁;体重指数30.7±6.3kg/m²)进行1.5特斯拉的检查。通过计算主动脉脉搏波速度(PWV)评估主动脉僵硬度,通过三维狄克逊序列评估EFV。分析纵向和圆周方向的收缩期心肌应变(LS;CS),并测定T1弛豫时间(T1)以检测心肌纤维化。
患有糖尿病的高血压患者的EFV最高(78.4±28.0ml/m²),其次是仅患有高血压的患者(64.2±27.3ml/m²),对照组最低(50.3±22.7ml/m²;p<0.05)。与仅患有高血压的患者(8.6±1.7m/s;p<0.05)和对照组(8.1±1.9m/s;p<0.05)相比,患有糖尿病的高血压患者的PWV更高(9.8±3.3m/s)。与仅患有高血压的患者(LS:-24.7±4.6%;CS:-27.1±5.0%;p<0.05)和对照组(LS:-25.5±3.8;CS:-28.3±4.1%;p<0.05)相比,患有糖尿病的高血压患者的LS和CS更差(LS:-20.9±5.1%和CS:-24.4±5.7%)。患有和未患有糖尿病的高血压组的T₁均高于对照组(994.0±43.2ms;991.6±35.5ms对比964.6±40.3ms;p<0.05)。
CMR显示高血压患者的主动脉僵硬度和EFV增加,在患有糖尿病时更高。还发现了左心室心肌纤维化和应变降低的迹象。这些参数有助于评估心血管风险和预后。当通常需要不同技术时,它们可以在单次检查中通过CMR准确测量。