Regional Strain Analysis with Multidetector CT in a Swine Cardiomyopathy Model: Relationship to Cardiac MR Tagging and Myocardial Fibrosis

Michael W Tee,Samuel Won,Fabio S Raman,Colin Yi,Davis M Vigneault,Cynthia Davies-Venn,Songtao Liu,Albert C Lardo,João A C Lima,J Alison Noble,Craig A Emter,David A Bluemke
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142339
IF: 19.7
Radiology
Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the use of cine multidetector computed tomography (CT) to detect changes in myocardial function in a swine cardiomyopathy model. Materials and methods: All animal protocols were in accordance with the Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing Research and Training and approved by the University of Missouri Animal Care and Use Committee. Strain analysis of cine multidetector CT images of the left ventricle was optimized and analyzed with feature-tracking software. The standard of reference for strain was harmonic phase analysis of tagged cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) images at 3.0 T. An animal model of cardiomyopathy was imaged with both cardiac MR and 320-section multidetector CT at a temporal resolution of less than 50 msec. Three groups were evaluated: control group (n = 5), aortic-banded myocardial hypertrophy group (n = 5), and aortic-banded and cyclosporine A- treated cardiomyopathy group (n = 5). Histologic samples of the myocardium were obtained for comparison with strain results. Dunnett test was used for comparisons of the concentric remodeling group and eccentric remodeling group against the control group. Results: Collagen volume fraction ranged from 10.9% to 14.2%; lower collagen fraction values were seen in the control group than in the cardiomyopathy groups (P < .05). Ejection fraction and conventional metrics showed no significant differences between control and cardiomyopathy groups. Radial strain for both cardiac MR and multidetector CT was abnormal in both concentric (cardiac MR 25.1% ± 4.2; multidetector CT 28.4% ± 2.8) and eccentric (cardiac MR 23.2% ± 2.0; multidetector CT 24.4% ± 2.1) remodeling groups relative to control group (cardiac MR 18.9% ± 1.9, multidetector CT 22.0% ± 1.7, P < .05, all comparisons). Strain values for multidetector CT versus cardiac MR showed better agreement in the radial direction than in the circumferential direction (r = 0.55, P = .03 vs r = 0.40, P = .13, respectively). Conclusion: Multidetector CT strain analysis has potential to identify regional wall-motion abnormalities in cardiomyopathy that is not otherwise detected using conventional metrics of myocardial function.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?