University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG), Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Göttingen, Germany.
German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Apr 20;2022:1368878. doi: 10.1155/2022/1368878. eCollection 2022.
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging is considered the reference standard for assessing cardiac morphology and function and has demonstrated prognostic utility in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Novel fully automated analyses may facilitate data analyses but have not yet been compared against conventional manual data acquisition in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).
Fully automated and manual biventricular assessments were performed in 139 AS patients scheduled for TAVR using commercially available software (suiteHEART®, Neosoft; QMass®, Medis Medical Imaging Systems). Volumetric assessment included left ventricular (LV) mass, LV/right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic/end-systolic volume, LV/RV stroke volume, and LV/RV ejection fraction (EF). Results of fully automated and manual analyses were compared. Regression analyses and receiver operator characteristics including area under the curve (AUC) calculation for prediction of the primary study endpoint cardiovascular (CV) death were performed.
Fully automated and manual assessment of LVEF revealed similar prediction of CV mortality in univariable (manual: hazard ratio (HR) 0.970 (95% CI 0.943-0.997) =0.032; automated: HR 0.967 (95% CI 0.939-0.995) =0.022) and multivariable analyses (model 1: (including significant univariable parameters) manual: HR 0.968 (95% CI 0.938-0.999) =0.043; automated: HR 0.963 [95% CI 0.933-0.995] =0.024; model 2: (including CV risk factors) manual: HR 0.962 (95% CI 0.920-0.996) =0.027; automated: HR 0.954 (95% CI 0.920-0.989) =0.011). There were no differences in AUC (LVEF fully automated: 0.686; manual: 0.661; =0.21). Absolute values of LV volumes differed significantly between automated and manual approaches ( < 0.001 for all). Fully automated quantification resulted in a time saving of 10 minutes per patient.
Fully automated biventricular volumetric assessments enable efficient and equal risk prediction compared to conventional manual approaches. In addition to significant time saving, this may provide the tools for optimized clinical management and stratification of patients with severe AS undergoing TAVR.
心血管磁共振成像被认为是评估心脏形态和功能的参考标准,并且已经在接受经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的患者中显示出预后效用。新型全自动分析可能有助于数据分析,但尚未在严重主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者中与传统的手动数据采集进行比较。
使用商业上可用的软件(suiteHEART®,Neosoft;QMass®,Medis Medical Imaging Systems)对 139 例计划接受 TAVR 的 AS 患者进行全自动和手动双心室评估。容积评估包括左心室(LV)质量、LV/右心室(RV)舒张末期/收缩末期容积、LV/RV 心搏量和 LV/RV 射血分数(EF)。比较全自动和手动分析的结果。进行回归分析和受试者工作特征分析,包括计算预测主要研究终点心血管(CV)死亡的曲线下面积(AUC)。
在单变量分析中,全自动和手动评估 LVEF 对 CV 死亡率的预测结果相似(手动:风险比(HR)0.970(95% CI 0.943-0.997)=0.032;自动:HR 0.967(95% CI 0.939-0.995)=0.022)和多变量分析(模型 1:(包括有意义的单变量参数)手动:HR 0.968(95% CI 0.938-0.999)=0.043;自动:HR 0.963 [95% CI 0.933-0.995] =0.024;模型 2:(包括 CV 危险因素)手动:HR 0.962(95% CI 0.920-0.996)=0.027;自动:HR 0.954(95% CI 0.920-0.989)=0.011)。AUC 没有差异(LVEF 全自动:0.686;手动:0.661;=0.21)。全自动和手动方法之间的 LV 容积绝对值差异显著(所有差异均 <0.001)。全自动定量分析可使每位患者的时间节省 10 分钟。
与传统的手动方法相比,全自动双心室容积评估可实现高效且平等的风险预测。除了显著节省时间外,这还可能为优化严重 AS 接受 TAVR 患者的临床管理和分层提供工具。