Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in pulmonary hypertension

Pulmonary hypertension represents a group of conditions characterized by higher than normal pulmonary artery pressures. Despite improved treatments, outcomes in many instances remain poor. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) in patients with pulmonary hypertension. This technique offers certain advantages over other imaging modalities since it is well suited to the assessment of the right ventricle and the proximal pulmonary arteries. Reflecting the relatively sparse evidence supporting its use, CMR is not routinely recommended for patients with pulmonary hypertension. However, it is particularly useful in patient with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with congenital heart disease. Furthermore, it has proven informative in a number of ways; illustrating how right ventricular remodeling is favorably reversed by drug therapies and providing explicit confirmation of the importance of the right ventricle to clinical outcome. This review will discuss these aspects and practical considerations before speculating on future applications

Magnetic resonance volume flow and jet velocity mapping in aortic coarctation

AbstractObjectives. Nuclear magnetic resonance (MRI) velocity mapping was used to characterize flow waveforms and to measure volume flow in the ascending and descending thoracic aorta in patients with aortic coarctation and in healthy volunteers. We present the method and discuss the relation between these measurements and aortic narrowing assessed by MRI. Finally, we compare coarctation jet velocity measured by MRI velocity mapping with that obtained from continuous wave Doppler echocardiography.Background. The development of a noninvasive imaging method for morphologic visuslization of aortic coarctation and for measurement of its impact on blood flow is highly desirable in the preoperative and postoperative management of patients.Methods. Magnetic resonance imaging phase-shift velocity mapping was used to measure ascending and descending aortic volume flow in 39 patients with aortic coarctation and in 12 healthy volunteers. Magnetic resonance imaging was also used for anatomic and peak jet velocity measurements. The latter were compared with those available from continuous wave Doppler study in 40% of the patients.Results. Whereas ascending aortic volume flow measurement did not show significant differences between the patient and healthy control groups, volume flow curves in the descending aorta did show significant differences between the two groups. Peak volume flow (mean ± SD) was 10.6 ± 5.3 liters/min in patients and 19.6 ± 4.7 liters/min in control subjects (p < 0.001). Time-averaged flow was 2.5 ± 0.9 liters/min in patients and 3.9 ±1.1 liters/min in control subjects (p < 0.05). The descending/ ascending aorta flow ratio was 0.47 ± 0.19 in patients and 0.64 ±0.08 in control subjects (p < 0.05). These variables correlate well with the degree of aortic narrowing. Peak coarctation jet velocity measured by MRI velocity mapping is comparable to that obtained from continuous wave Doppler study (r = 0.95).Conclusions. We established normal ranges for volume flow in the descending aorta and demonstrated abnormalities in patients with aortic coarctation. These abnormalities are likely to be related to resistance to flow imposed by the coarctation and could represent an additional index for monitoring patients before and after intervention

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance artefacts

The multitude of applications offered by CMR make it an increasing popular modality to study the heart and the surrounding vessels. Nevertheless the anatomical complexity of the chest, together with cardiac and respiratory motion, and the fast flowing blood, present many challenges which can possibly translate into imaging artefacts. The literature is wide in terms of papers describing specific MR artefacts in great technical detail. In this review we attempt to summarise, in a language accessible to a clinical readership, some of the most common artefacts found in CMR applications. It begins with an introduction of the most common pulse sequences, and imaging techniques, followed by a brief section on typical cardiovascular applications. This leads to the main section on common CMR artefacts with examples, a short description of the mechanisms behind them, and possible solutions

Right ventricular dysfunction is a predictor of non-response and clinical outcome following cardiac resynchronization therapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment in advanced heart failure (HF). However, an important subset does not derive a significant benefit. Despite an established predictive role in HF, the significance of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in predicting clinical benefit from CRT remains unclear. We investigated the role of RV function, assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), in predicting response to and major adverse clinical events in HF patients undergoing CRT.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sixty consecutive patients were evaluated with CMR prior to CRT implantation in a tertiary cardiac centre. The primary end-point was a composite of death from any cause or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event. The secondary end-point was response to therapy, defined as improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 5% on echocardiography at one year.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighteen patients (30%) met the primary end-point over a median follow-up period of 26 months, and 27 out of 56 patients (48%) were considered responders to CRT. On time-to-event analysis, only atrial fibrillation (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.02-6.84, p = 0.047) and RV dysfunction, either by a reduced right ventricular ejection fraction-RVEF (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, p = 0.006) or tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion-TAPSE (HR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80-0.96, p = 0.006), were significant predictors of adverse events. On logistic regression analysis, preserved RVEF (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01) and myocardial scar burden (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.96, p = 0.004) were the sole independent predictors of response to CRT. Patients with marked RV dysfunction (RVEF < 30%) had a particularly low response rate (18.2%) to CRT.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Right ventricular function is an important predictor of both response to CRT and long-term clinical outcome. Routine assessment of the right ventricle should be considered in the evaluation of patients for CRT.</p