Comparison and reproducibility of standard and high temporal resolution myocardial tissue tagging in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare and assess the reproducibility of left ventricular (LV) circumferential peak systolic strain (PeakEcc) and strain rate (SR) measurements using standard and high temporal resolution myocardial tissue tagging in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Background Myocardial tissue tagging with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can be used to quantify strain and SR, however, there are little data on the reproducibility. Diastolic SR may be of particular interest as it may be the most sensitive marker of diastolic dysfunction often occurring early in the course of disease. Methods Eight patients with isolated severe AS without obstructive coronary artery disease were prospectively enrolled. They underwent CMR in a 1.5T scanner (Siemens Avanto) on two separate occasions, median interval 12 days. Complementary tagged (CSPAMM) images were acquired with both a single breath-hold (SBH: temporal resolution 42ms), and a multiple brief expiration breath-hold (MBH: high temporal resolution 17ms) sequence. Mid-wall PeakEcc was measured in the LV at mid-ventricular level with HARP Version 2.7 (Diagnosoft, USA). SR was calculated from the strain data; SR=Ecc2-Ecc1/Time2-Time1. PeakEcc , peak systolic and diastolic SR were read from curves of strain and SR against time. The MBH SR curves were filtered with a moving average (MA) to reduce noise sensitivity, results from a sample width of three and five were examined. Differences between SBH and MBH were assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test as not all measures were normally distributed. Reproducibility assessments were carried out on all techniques. Results PeakEcc was significantly higher with MBH vs. SBH, but reproducibility was slightly worse. Results are summarised in Table 1. Systolic SR was approximately equal with all techniques although MBH using MA of five led to a borderline significant reduction. Diastolic SR was higher when measured with MBH although only significant using MA of three. Systolic and diastolic SR measures were more reproducible with MBH compared with SBH, except for the diastolic SR using MA of three, which was substantially worse. Strain and SR curves for the same patient are shown in Figure 1

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Prevalence and extent of infarct and microvascular obstruction following different reperfusion therapies in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Background: Microvascular obstruction (MVO) describes suboptimal tissue perfusion despite restoration of infarct-related artery flow. There are scarce data on Infarct Size (IS) and MVO in relation to the mode and timing of reperfusion. We sought to characterise the prevalence and extent of microvascular injury and IS using Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), in relation to the mode of reperfusion following acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Methods: CMR infarct characteristics were measured in 94 STEMI patients (age 61.0 ± 13.1 years) at 1.5 T. Seventy-three received reperfusion therapy: primary percutaneous coronary-intervention (PPCI, n = 47); thrombolysis (n = 12); rescue PCI (R-PCI, n = 8), late PCI (n = 6). Twenty-one patients presented late (>12 hours) and did not receive reperfusion therapy. Results: IS was smaller in PPCI (19.8 ± 13.2% of LV mass) and thrombolysis (15.2 ± 10.1%) groups compared to patients in the late PCI (40.0 ± 15.6%) and R-PCI (34.2 ± 18.9%) groups, p <0.001. The prevalence of MVO was similar across all groups and was seen at least as frequently in the non-reperfused group (15/21, [76%] v 33/59, [56%], p = 0.21) and to a similar magnitude (1.3 (0.0-2.8) v 0.4 [0.0-2.9]% LV mass, p = 0.36) compared to patients receiving early reperfusion therapy. In the 73 reperfused patients, time to reperfusion, ischaemia area at risk and TIMI grade post-PCI were the strongest independent predictors of IS and MVO. Conclusions: In patients with acute STEMI, CMR-measured MVO is not exclusive to reperfusion therapy and is primarily related to ischaemic time. This finding has important implications for clinical trials that use CMR to assess the efficacy of therapies to reduce reperfusion injury in STEMI

Comparison of global myocardial strain assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance tagging and feature tracking to infarct size at predicting remodelling following STEMI.

BACKGROUND: To determine if global strain parameters measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) acutely following ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) predict adverse left ventricular (LV) remodelling independent of infarct size (IS). METHODS: Sixty-five patients with acute STEMI (mean age 60 ± 11 years) underwent CMR at 1-3 days post-reperfusion (baseline) and at 4 months. Global peak systolic circumferential strain (GCS), measured by tagging and Feature Tracking (FT), and global peak systolic longitudinal strain (GLS), measured by FT, were calculated at baseline, along with IS. On follow up scans, volumetric analysis was performed to determine the development of adverse remodelling - a composite score based on development of either end-diastolic volume index [EDVI] ≥20% or end-systolic volume index [ESVI] ≥15% at follow-up compared to baseline. RESULTS: The magnitude of GCS was higher when measured using FT (-21.1 ± 6.3%) than with tagging (-12.1 ± 4.3; p < 0.001 for difference). There was good correlation of strain with baseline LVEF (r 0.64-to 0.71) and IS (ρ -0.62 to-0.72). Baseline strain parameters were unable to predict development of adverse LV remodelling. Only baseline IS predicted adverse remodelling - Odds Ratio 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.10, p = 0.03), area under the ROC curve 0.70 (95% CI 0.52-0.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Baseline global strain by CMR does not predict the development of adverse LV remodelling following STEMI