Abstract

Aims 

The non-invasive assessment of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function and filling pressure in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is still an open issue. Pulmonary blood volume index (PBVI) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed as a quantitative biomarker of haemodynamic congestion. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PBVI for left atrial pressure (LAP) estimation in patients with HCM.

Methods and results 

We retrospectively identified 69 consecutive HCM outpatients (age 58 ± 11 years; 83% men) who underwent both transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and CMR. Guideline-based detection of LV diastolic dysfunction was assessed by TTE, blinded to CMR results. PBVI was calculated as the product of right ventricular stroke volume index and the number of cardiac cycles for a bolus of gadolinium to pass through the pulmonary circulation as assessed by first-pass perfusion imaging. Compared to patients with normal LAP, patients with increased LAP showed significantly larger PBVI (463 ± 127 vs. 310 ± 86 mL/m2, P < 0.001). PBVI increased progressively with worsening New York Heart Association functional class and echocardiographic stages of diastolic dysfunction (P < 0.001 for both). At the best cut-off point of 413 mL/m2, PBVI yielded good diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of LV diastolic dysfunction with increased LAP [C-statistic = 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73–0.94]. At multivariable logistic regression analysis, PBVI was an independent predictor of increased LAP (odds ratio per 10% increase: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.06–3.68; P = 0.03).

Conclusion 

PBVI is a promising CMR application for assessment of diastolic function and LAP in patients with HCM and may serve as a quantitative marker for detection, grading, and monitoring of haemodynamic congestion.

Introduction

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common inherited heart muscle disorder and an important cause of heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction.1,2 Diastolic dysfunction is a major contributor to the pathophysiology of HF in HCM, which encompasses a complex sequence of interrelated mechanisms including LV hypertrophy, intraventricular obstruction, microvascular ischaemia, and myocardial fibrosis.3 Evidence of diastolic dysfunction is frequently observed in HCM4 and is known to have a major impact on symptom severity, functional capacity, medical treatment, and prognosis.5–7

Echocardiography is the non-invasive modality of choice for the semi-quantitative evaluation of LV diastolic function. Using echocardiography, a comprehensive multi-parameter algorithm is recommended for the estimation of elevated mean left atrial pressure (LAP).8,9

Despite this, the identification of accurate and reproducible indices for quantitative assessment of haemodynamic congestion in HCM is still an unmet clinical need, in particular, to allow for early detection of disease progression and treatment guidance. An alternative approach to assess the presence and severity of diastolic dysfunction would be by measuring to what extent the elevated LV filling pressure is transmitted retrogradely into the pulmonary circulation leading to an increase in central transit time,10 pulmonary blood volume,11 and eventually to increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure (haemodynamic congestion). Pulmonary blood volume index (PBVI) by first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has been shown to differentiate between stages of diastolic dysfunction in patients with HF and reduced LV ejection fraction and has been proposed as a quantitative marker of HF useful for quantification and monitoring of haemodynamic congestion.11,12 In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PBVI by CMR for the detection and grading of haemodynamic congestion in patients with HCM and preserved LV ejection fraction.

Methods

Study design and population

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients recruited into the Barts BioResource medical research programme complying with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and approved by our Institutional Ethics Committee. The Barts BioResource is a joint partnership between Barts Health NHS Trust, the William Harvey Research Institute/Queen Mary University of London, and University College London with support from the National Institute for Health Research Barts Biomedical Research Centre aimed to establish a research repository of consented patients clinically managed by Cardiac Services at Barts Health NHS Trust. All patients gave written informed consent and received standard optimal medical therapy according to the current guidelines. We identified all consecutive HCM outpatients undergoing CMR stress perfusion imaging for clinical purposes between January 2015 and September 2017.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) age <18 years; (ii) presence of any contra-indication to CMR and/or to administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents; (iii) atrial fibrillation or frequent ventricular ectopy during image acquisition; (iv) any hospitalization, worsening of the functional status, changes in medical treatment occurred in the time interval between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and CMR; (v) at least moderate tricuspid valve regurgitation by TTE; (vi) known significant coronary artery disease; and (vii) LV ejection fraction <50%.

All patients underwent a standard clinical assessment including medical history, physical examination, routine blood tests, transthoracic echocardiogram, and contrast-enhanced CMR.

Transthoracic echocardiography

All patients underwent both standard TTE (Vivid E9TM, General Electric) and CMR examinations [median time interval 5 days, interquartile range (IQR) 3–10]. A comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of LV diastolic function was performed in agreement with the current international guidelines,8 including structural assessment of LV size and mass, left atrial (LA) volume, mitral inflow and pulmonary venous flow patterns, pulsed-wave tissue-Doppler imaging of mitral annular velocities, peak velocity of tricuspid regurgitation, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP). LV diastolic dysfunction with increased LA pressures was defined as the presence of a Grade II or III diastolic dysfunction by Doppler echocardiography, as described previously.8

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance

All patients were examined on two Magnetom Aera 1.5 T scanners (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) using an 18-channel cardiac phased array anterior coil in combination with the spine coil (up to 12-channel coil elements). Biventricular function was assessed by breath-hold, steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine short-axis imaging covering both ventricles. Typical scan parameters were: field of view 360 × 290 mm2, 8 mm slice thickness with a 2 mm inter-slice gap, repetition time 2.7 ms, echo time 1.14 ms, flip angle 80°, acquisition matrix 208 × 169, reconstruction pixel size 1.73 × 1.73 mm2, acquired temporal resolution 35.1 ms (13 views per k-space segment), and 30 calculated cardiac phases. CMR perfusion imaging was performed with the first-pass technique as described previously.11 Briefly, a bolus of gadolinium-based contrast agent (Dotarem, Guerbet, France, 0.05 mmol/kg at an injection rate of 4 mL/s) was injected into a peripheral vein, followed by a saline flush (injection rate 4 mL/s). Adenosine was given intravenously at 140 μg/kg/min for 4 min. First-pass images were obtained using cardiac-triggered gradient echo-train SSFP pulse sequences. Images from three short-axis planes (basal, middle, and apical) were acquired with the following parameters: typical field of view 360 × 270 mm2, slice thickness 8 mm, slice gap 12 mm, repetition time 2.5 ms, echo time 1.04 ms, flip angle 50°, bandwidth 1085 Hz/pixel, 60 dynamics, acquisition matrix 111 × 192, and a parallel acceleration factor R = 3 (TGRAPPA).13 Image acquisition was begun at the same time as the contrast media injection.

Image analysis

All CMR studies were analysed off-line using cvi42 post-processing software (Version 5.1.1, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Canada) by two EACVI CMR Level 3 certified operators (F.R. and N.A.), blinded to clinical and echocardiographic data. Ventricular volumes and function, as well as LV mass and atrial dimensions, were determined using balanced SSFP cine images as described previously.14

Pulmonary transit time

Pulmonary transit time (PTT) has been measured as the time interval required for a bolus of contrast agent to pass from the right ventricle to LV. First-pass perfusion imaging allows us to obtain an image for each heartbeat for 60 consecutive beats and can, therefore, be used to measure PTT. Briefly, in the basal slice of the first-pass perfusion imaging short-axis view stack, a region of interest was placed in the right ventricular (RV) cavity and copied in the same position for the entire stack of images. The average signal intensity (SI) of the region of interest was measured in every image and a SI/time curve was generated (Figure 1). A second SI/time curve was generated from another region of interest placed in the basal LV cavity. The PTT was measured as the peak-to-peak time interval between the two curves, both under resting and stress conditions. The number of cardiac cycles between the peaks of the two SI/time curves defines the number of pulmonary transit beats (PTB). Bazett’s formula was used to correct the PTT interval for the heart rate: PTTc (s) = PTT (s)/√R-R interval(s). In a preliminary study, we compared the measurement of PTT and PTB as onset-to-onset, peak-to-peak and half-width time interval of the wash-in phase of SI/heartbeat curves.11 We observed no significant differences among such methods, and we finally chose the peak-to-peak time interval as the most reproducible, yielding intra-class correlation coefficient values of 0.99 and 0.97 for intra-observer and inter-observer reliability, respectively.

Pulmonary transit time and PBVI. SI/time curves of two regions of interest drawn in the RV cavity (red) and in the LV cavity (green), respectively. PTT is defined by the time interval between the peaks of the two SI/time curves. PBVI is obtained by the product between the RVSVI and the pulmonary transit time normalized by the R-R interval (see Methods section). Gd, gadolinium; LV, left ventricle; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index; PTT, pulmonary transit time; RV, right ventricle; RVSVI, right ventricular stroke volume index; SI, signal intensity.
Figure 1

Pulmonary transit time and PBVI. SI/time curves of two regions of interest drawn in the RV cavity (red) and in the LV cavity (green), respectively. PTT is defined by the time interval between the peaks of the two SI/time curves. PBVI is obtained by the product between the RVSVI and the pulmonary transit time normalized by the R-R interval (see Methods section). Gd, gadolinium; LV, left ventricle; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index; PTT, pulmonary transit time; RV, right ventricle; RVSVI, right ventricular stroke volume index; SI, signal intensity.

Pulmonary blood volume index

Resting pulmonary blood volume indexed to body surface area (PBVI, mL/m2) was measured by the product of PTB and the RV stroke volume index (RVSVI) (Figure 1). This is better understood if one considers PBVI as being analogous to a cargo train, with the number of wagons equivalent to the number of cardiac cycles for an intravenous bolus of gadolinium contrast to pass through the pulmonary circulation, and the content of each wagon equal to the RVSVI.

Statistical analysis

We used the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normal distribution. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median and IQR, if not normally distributed. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency and percentage. The Student’s independent t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), or Kruskal–Wallis test were used to compare continuous variables, while categorical variables were compared using the χ2 or Fisher’s exact test. Diagnostic accuracy of PBVI for the diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of diastolic dysfunction. The adjusted model was built by adding age, sex, and covariates found to be clinically relevant and/or statistically significant at univariate analysis. The significance level of all analyses was set at P < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc for Windows, version 12.5 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium) and Wizard for Mac, version 1.7.8 (Boston, MA, USA).

Results

Baseline characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. All patients (mean age 58 ± 11 years; 83% of men) were diagnosed with HCM based on clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic and CMR findings. Asymmetric septal (48%) and apical (30%) hypertrophy were the most frequent morphologic HCM phenotypes. Overall, 32 (46%) patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class I, 29 (42%) in Class II, and 8 (12%) in Class III. Of 23 patients with diastolic dysfunction and increased LAP, 6 (26%) showed a restrictive filling pattern (Grade III).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of HCM outpatients by severity of diastolic dysfunction as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography

CharacteristicsHCM (n = 69)Increased LAP Grade II–III (n = 23)Normal LAP Grade I (n = 46)P-value
Age (years)58 ± 1157 ± 1158 ± 11NSa
Gender (male), n (%)57 (83)18 (78)39 (85)NSb
BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR)29 (6)29 (8)28.5 (6)NSc
BSA (m2), median (IQR)1.99 (0.30)2.00 (0.39)1.98 (0.31)NSc
Diabetes, n (%)12 (17)3 (13)9 (19)NSb
Active smoker, n (%)29 (42)10 (43)19 (41)NSb
Hypertension, n (%)28 (40)10 (43)18 (39)NSb
NYHA class, n (%)
 I32 (46)6 (26)26 (57)0.017b
 II29 (42)10 (44)19 (41)NSb
 III8 (12)7 (30)1 (2)<0.001b
 IV0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Resting cardiac morphology and function by CMR imaging
 LVSVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)62 (17)61 (14)50 (14)<0.001c
 LVEF (%)73 ± 975 ± 872 ± 9NSa
 LVEDVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)74 (22)95 (23)78 (14)0.006c
 LVESVI (mL/m2)21 ± 1021 ± 921 ± 10NSa
 RVSVI (mL/m2)51 (15)55 (12)47 (12)0.004c
 RVEF (%)68 ± 870 ± 967 ± 8NSa
 RVEDVI (mL/m2), median IQR73 (15)78 (14)68 (19)0.005c
 RVESVI (mL/m2)23 ± 1024 ± 823 ± 11NSa
 LA area index (cm2/m2)14 ± 415 ± 414 ± 4NSa
 LA volume index (mL/m2)56 ± 1269 ± 1350 ± 12<0.001a
 AP-LA diameter (mm)40 ± 840 ± 1240 ± 7NSa
 Maximal wall thickness (mm)18 ± 518 ± 418 ± 5NSa
 LV mass index (g/m2)91 ± 2593 ± 3290 ± 22NSa
 SAM, n (%)20 (30)10 (43)10 (22)NSb
 LVOTO, n (%)11 (16)4 (17)7 (15)NSb
 MR,dn (%)8 (12)6 (26)2 (4)0.015b
 LGE, n (%)48 (70)19 (83)29 (63)NSb
 Adenosine-induced perfusion defects, n (%)52 (75)19 (82)33 (72)NSb
 Heart rate (bpm), rest68 ± 1167 ± 1068 ± 11NSa
 Heart rate (bpm), stress84 ± 1381 ± 4.587 ± 5.8NSa
Diastolic function assessment
 PTT (s)6.7 ± 1.77.2 ± 1.56.4 ± 1.70.042a
 PTTc (s)6.8 ± 1.67.7 ± 1.46.5 ± 1.60.014a
 PTTc stress (s)7.5 ± 27.7 ± 2.17.4 ± 2.1NSa
 PTB (bpm)7.4 ± 1.88.0 ± 1.57.1 ± 1.80.047a
 PBVI (mL/m2)361 ± 124463 ± 127310 ± 86<0.001a
 PFRE (mL/s)641 ± 201666 ± 189628 ± 207NSa
 PFRE/BSA (mL/m2)333 ± 101352 ± 107323 ± 98NSc
 PFRE/EDV (/s)4.5 ± 1.54.4 ± 1.24.7 ± 1.6NSc
 PFRA (mL/s)505 ± 196563 ± 243477 ± 165NSa
 PFRA/BSA (mL/m2)261 ± 91293 ± 107245 ± 79NSc
 PFRA/EDV (/s)3.5 ± 1.13.7 ± 1.23.5 ± 1.1NSc
 PFRE/PFRA1.4 ± 0.41.3 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.5NSc
 sPAP (mmHg),e median (IQR)29 (13)37 (16)27 (9)0.003c
 E wave (cm/s),e median (IQR)70 (26)78 (17)62 (26)0.009c
E/A,e median (IQR)1.2 (0.5)1.2 (0.4)1.1 (0.5)NSc
 LAVI (mL/m2),e median (IQR)49 (26)68 (45)47 (14)0.011c
E/E',e median (IQR)12 (5)15 (3.5)11 (4)<0.001c
CharacteristicsHCM (n = 69)Increased LAP Grade II–III (n = 23)Normal LAP Grade I (n = 46)P-value
Age (years)58 ± 1157 ± 1158 ± 11NSa
Gender (male), n (%)57 (83)18 (78)39 (85)NSb
BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR)29 (6)29 (8)28.5 (6)NSc
BSA (m2), median (IQR)1.99 (0.30)2.00 (0.39)1.98 (0.31)NSc
Diabetes, n (%)12 (17)3 (13)9 (19)NSb
Active smoker, n (%)29 (42)10 (43)19 (41)NSb
Hypertension, n (%)28 (40)10 (43)18 (39)NSb
NYHA class, n (%)
 I32 (46)6 (26)26 (57)0.017b
 II29 (42)10 (44)19 (41)NSb
 III8 (12)7 (30)1 (2)<0.001b
 IV0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Resting cardiac morphology and function by CMR imaging
 LVSVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)62 (17)61 (14)50 (14)<0.001c
 LVEF (%)73 ± 975 ± 872 ± 9NSa
 LVEDVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)74 (22)95 (23)78 (14)0.006c
 LVESVI (mL/m2)21 ± 1021 ± 921 ± 10NSa
 RVSVI (mL/m2)51 (15)55 (12)47 (12)0.004c
 RVEF (%)68 ± 870 ± 967 ± 8NSa
 RVEDVI (mL/m2), median IQR73 (15)78 (14)68 (19)0.005c
 RVESVI (mL/m2)23 ± 1024 ± 823 ± 11NSa
 LA area index (cm2/m2)14 ± 415 ± 414 ± 4NSa
 LA volume index (mL/m2)56 ± 1269 ± 1350 ± 12<0.001a
 AP-LA diameter (mm)40 ± 840 ± 1240 ± 7NSa
 Maximal wall thickness (mm)18 ± 518 ± 418 ± 5NSa
 LV mass index (g/m2)91 ± 2593 ± 3290 ± 22NSa
 SAM, n (%)20 (30)10 (43)10 (22)NSb
 LVOTO, n (%)11 (16)4 (17)7 (15)NSb
 MR,dn (%)8 (12)6 (26)2 (4)0.015b
 LGE, n (%)48 (70)19 (83)29 (63)NSb
 Adenosine-induced perfusion defects, n (%)52 (75)19 (82)33 (72)NSb
 Heart rate (bpm), rest68 ± 1167 ± 1068 ± 11NSa
 Heart rate (bpm), stress84 ± 1381 ± 4.587 ± 5.8NSa
Diastolic function assessment
 PTT (s)6.7 ± 1.77.2 ± 1.56.4 ± 1.70.042a
 PTTc (s)6.8 ± 1.67.7 ± 1.46.5 ± 1.60.014a
 PTTc stress (s)7.5 ± 27.7 ± 2.17.4 ± 2.1NSa
 PTB (bpm)7.4 ± 1.88.0 ± 1.57.1 ± 1.80.047a
 PBVI (mL/m2)361 ± 124463 ± 127310 ± 86<0.001a
 PFRE (mL/s)641 ± 201666 ± 189628 ± 207NSa
 PFRE/BSA (mL/m2)333 ± 101352 ± 107323 ± 98NSc
 PFRE/EDV (/s)4.5 ± 1.54.4 ± 1.24.7 ± 1.6NSc
 PFRA (mL/s)505 ± 196563 ± 243477 ± 165NSa
 PFRA/BSA (mL/m2)261 ± 91293 ± 107245 ± 79NSc
 PFRA/EDV (/s)3.5 ± 1.13.7 ± 1.23.5 ± 1.1NSc
 PFRE/PFRA1.4 ± 0.41.3 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.5NSc
 sPAP (mmHg),e median (IQR)29 (13)37 (16)27 (9)0.003c
 E wave (cm/s),e median (IQR)70 (26)78 (17)62 (26)0.009c
E/A,e median (IQR)1.2 (0.5)1.2 (0.4)1.1 (0.5)NSc
 LAVI (mL/m2),e median (IQR)49 (26)68 (45)47 (14)0.011c
E/E',e median (IQR)12 (5)15 (3.5)11 (4)<0.001c

Data are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

AP, anteroposterior; BMI, body mass index; BSA, body surface area; EDV, end-diastolic volume; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; IQR, interquartile range; LA, left atrium; LAP, left atrial pressure; LAVI, left atrial volume index; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; LV, left ventricle; LVEDVI, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESVI, left ventricular end-systolic volume index; MR, mitral regurgitation; NS, not significant; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index; PFRA, atrial (active) peak filling rate; PFRE, early (passive) peak filling rate; PTB, pulmonary transit beats; PTT, pulmonary transit time; PTTc, pulmonary transit time corrected by Bazett's formula; RA, right atrium; RVEDVI, right ventricular end-diastolic volume index; RVEF, right ventricular ejection fraction; RVESVI, right ventricular end-systolic volume index; SAM, systolic anterior movement; SD, standard deviation; sPAP, systolic pulmonary artery pressure.

a

The Student's t-test for unpaired data.

b

The χ2 test.

c

The Mann–Whitney U test.

d

At least moderate.

e

Assessed by transthoracic echocardiography.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of HCM outpatients by severity of diastolic dysfunction as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography

CharacteristicsHCM (n = 69)Increased LAP Grade II–III (n = 23)Normal LAP Grade I (n = 46)P-value
Age (years)58 ± 1157 ± 1158 ± 11NSa
Gender (male), n (%)57 (83)18 (78)39 (85)NSb
BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR)29 (6)29 (8)28.5 (6)NSc
BSA (m2), median (IQR)1.99 (0.30)2.00 (0.39)1.98 (0.31)NSc
Diabetes, n (%)12 (17)3 (13)9 (19)NSb
Active smoker, n (%)29 (42)10 (43)19 (41)NSb
Hypertension, n (%)28 (40)10 (43)18 (39)NSb
NYHA class, n (%)
 I32 (46)6 (26)26 (57)0.017b
 II29 (42)10 (44)19 (41)NSb
 III8 (12)7 (30)1 (2)<0.001b
 IV0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Resting cardiac morphology and function by CMR imaging
 LVSVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)62 (17)61 (14)50 (14)<0.001c
 LVEF (%)73 ± 975 ± 872 ± 9NSa
 LVEDVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)74 (22)95 (23)78 (14)0.006c
 LVESVI (mL/m2)21 ± 1021 ± 921 ± 10NSa
 RVSVI (mL/m2)51 (15)55 (12)47 (12)0.004c
 RVEF (%)68 ± 870 ± 967 ± 8NSa
 RVEDVI (mL/m2), median IQR73 (15)78 (14)68 (19)0.005c
 RVESVI (mL/m2)23 ± 1024 ± 823 ± 11NSa
 LA area index (cm2/m2)14 ± 415 ± 414 ± 4NSa
 LA volume index (mL/m2)56 ± 1269 ± 1350 ± 12<0.001a
 AP-LA diameter (mm)40 ± 840 ± 1240 ± 7NSa
 Maximal wall thickness (mm)18 ± 518 ± 418 ± 5NSa
 LV mass index (g/m2)91 ± 2593 ± 3290 ± 22NSa
 SAM, n (%)20 (30)10 (43)10 (22)NSb
 LVOTO, n (%)11 (16)4 (17)7 (15)NSb
 MR,dn (%)8 (12)6 (26)2 (4)0.015b
 LGE, n (%)48 (70)19 (83)29 (63)NSb
 Adenosine-induced perfusion defects, n (%)52 (75)19 (82)33 (72)NSb
 Heart rate (bpm), rest68 ± 1167 ± 1068 ± 11NSa
 Heart rate (bpm), stress84 ± 1381 ± 4.587 ± 5.8NSa
Diastolic function assessment
 PTT (s)6.7 ± 1.77.2 ± 1.56.4 ± 1.70.042a
 PTTc (s)6.8 ± 1.67.7 ± 1.46.5 ± 1.60.014a
 PTTc stress (s)7.5 ± 27.7 ± 2.17.4 ± 2.1NSa
 PTB (bpm)7.4 ± 1.88.0 ± 1.57.1 ± 1.80.047a
 PBVI (mL/m2)361 ± 124463 ± 127310 ± 86<0.001a
 PFRE (mL/s)641 ± 201666 ± 189628 ± 207NSa
 PFRE/BSA (mL/m2)333 ± 101352 ± 107323 ± 98NSc
 PFRE/EDV (/s)4.5 ± 1.54.4 ± 1.24.7 ± 1.6NSc
 PFRA (mL/s)505 ± 196563 ± 243477 ± 165NSa
 PFRA/BSA (mL/m2)261 ± 91293 ± 107245 ± 79NSc
 PFRA/EDV (/s)3.5 ± 1.13.7 ± 1.23.5 ± 1.1NSc
 PFRE/PFRA1.4 ± 0.41.3 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.5NSc
 sPAP (mmHg),e median (IQR)29 (13)37 (16)27 (9)0.003c
 E wave (cm/s),e median (IQR)70 (26)78 (17)62 (26)0.009c
E/A,e median (IQR)1.2 (0.5)1.2 (0.4)1.1 (0.5)NSc
 LAVI (mL/m2),e median (IQR)49 (26)68 (45)47 (14)0.011c
E/E',e median (IQR)12 (5)15 (3.5)11 (4)<0.001c
CharacteristicsHCM (n = 69)Increased LAP Grade II–III (n = 23)Normal LAP Grade I (n = 46)P-value
Age (years)58 ± 1157 ± 1158 ± 11NSa
Gender (male), n (%)57 (83)18 (78)39 (85)NSb
BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR)29 (6)29 (8)28.5 (6)NSc
BSA (m2), median (IQR)1.99 (0.30)2.00 (0.39)1.98 (0.31)NSc
Diabetes, n (%)12 (17)3 (13)9 (19)NSb
Active smoker, n (%)29 (42)10 (43)19 (41)NSb
Hypertension, n (%)28 (40)10 (43)18 (39)NSb
NYHA class, n (%)
 I32 (46)6 (26)26 (57)0.017b
 II29 (42)10 (44)19 (41)NSb
 III8 (12)7 (30)1 (2)<0.001b
 IV0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Resting cardiac morphology and function by CMR imaging
 LVSVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)62 (17)61 (14)50 (14)<0.001c
 LVEF (%)73 ± 975 ± 872 ± 9NSa
 LVEDVI (mL/m2), median (IQR)74 (22)95 (23)78 (14)0.006c
 LVESVI (mL/m2)21 ± 1021 ± 921 ± 10NSa
 RVSVI (mL/m2)51 (15)55 (12)47 (12)0.004c
 RVEF (%)68 ± 870 ± 967 ± 8NSa
 RVEDVI (mL/m2), median IQR73 (15)78 (14)68 (19)0.005c
 RVESVI (mL/m2)23 ± 1024 ± 823 ± 11NSa
 LA area index (cm2/m2)14 ± 415 ± 414 ± 4NSa
 LA volume index (mL/m2)56 ± 1269 ± 1350 ± 12<0.001a
 AP-LA diameter (mm)40 ± 840 ± 1240 ± 7NSa
 Maximal wall thickness (mm)18 ± 518 ± 418 ± 5NSa
 LV mass index (g/m2)91 ± 2593 ± 3290 ± 22NSa
 SAM, n (%)20 (30)10 (43)10 (22)NSb
 LVOTO, n (%)11 (16)4 (17)7 (15)NSb
 MR,dn (%)8 (12)6 (26)2 (4)0.015b
 LGE, n (%)48 (70)19 (83)29 (63)NSb
 Adenosine-induced perfusion defects, n (%)52 (75)19 (82)33 (72)NSb
 Heart rate (bpm), rest68 ± 1167 ± 1068 ± 11NSa
 Heart rate (bpm), stress84 ± 1381 ± 4.587 ± 5.8NSa
Diastolic function assessment
 PTT (s)6.7 ± 1.77.2 ± 1.56.4 ± 1.70.042a
 PTTc (s)6.8 ± 1.67.7 ± 1.46.5 ± 1.60.014a
 PTTc stress (s)7.5 ± 27.7 ± 2.17.4 ± 2.1NSa
 PTB (bpm)7.4 ± 1.88.0 ± 1.57.1 ± 1.80.047a
 PBVI (mL/m2)361 ± 124463 ± 127310 ± 86<0.001a
 PFRE (mL/s)641 ± 201666 ± 189628 ± 207NSa
 PFRE/BSA (mL/m2)333 ± 101352 ± 107323 ± 98NSc
 PFRE/EDV (/s)4.5 ± 1.54.4 ± 1.24.7 ± 1.6NSc
 PFRA (mL/s)505 ± 196563 ± 243477 ± 165NSa
 PFRA/BSA (mL/m2)261 ± 91293 ± 107245 ± 79NSc
 PFRA/EDV (/s)3.5 ± 1.13.7 ± 1.23.5 ± 1.1NSc
 PFRE/PFRA1.4 ± 0.41.3 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.5NSc
 sPAP (mmHg),e median (IQR)29 (13)37 (16)27 (9)0.003c
 E wave (cm/s),e median (IQR)70 (26)78 (17)62 (26)0.009c
E/A,e median (IQR)1.2 (0.5)1.2 (0.4)1.1 (0.5)NSc
 LAVI (mL/m2),e median (IQR)49 (26)68 (45)47 (14)0.011c
E/E',e median (IQR)12 (5)15 (3.5)11 (4)<0.001c

Data are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

AP, anteroposterior; BMI, body mass index; BSA, body surface area; EDV, end-diastolic volume; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; IQR, interquartile range; LA, left atrium; LAP, left atrial pressure; LAVI, left atrial volume index; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; LV, left ventricle; LVEDVI, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESVI, left ventricular end-systolic volume index; MR, mitral regurgitation; NS, not significant; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index; PFRA, atrial (active) peak filling rate; PFRE, early (passive) peak filling rate; PTB, pulmonary transit beats; PTT, pulmonary transit time; PTTc, pulmonary transit time corrected by Bazett's formula; RA, right atrium; RVEDVI, right ventricular end-diastolic volume index; RVEF, right ventricular ejection fraction; RVESVI, right ventricular end-systolic volume index; SAM, systolic anterior movement; SD, standard deviation; sPAP, systolic pulmonary artery pressure.

a

The Student's t-test for unpaired data.

b

The χ2 test.

c

The Mann–Whitney U test.

d

At least moderate.

e

Assessed by transthoracic echocardiography.

Compared with patients without elevated LAP, patients with increased LAP showed significantly larger biventricular end-diastolic volumes, stroke volumes and left atrium volume index, longer PTTc, larger PBVI, and more severe mitral regurgitation (Table 1).

Presence and extent of myocardial fibrosis, adenosine inducible perfusion defects, and prevalence of systolic anterior movement and LV outflow obstruction were similar between the two groups (P = not significant).

Compared with resting measurement, PTTc significantly increased during adenosine stress in patients with normal LAP (P = 0.045), remaining unchanged in the subgroup of patients with elevated LAP.

PBVI increased progressively with worsening NYHA functional class (Figure 2) and echocardiographic stages of diastolic dysfunction (ANOVA; P < 0.001 for both) (Figure 3). In the subgroup of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients (NYHA functional Class I or II), patients with increased LAP showed higher PBVI compared with patients with normal LAP (PBVI 419 ± 125 vs. 308 ± 88 mL/m2; P < 0.0001).

PBVI by NYHA functional class status. NYHA, New York Heart Association; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.
Figure 2

PBVI by NYHA functional class status. NYHA, New York Heart Association; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.

PBVI and echocardiographic stages of diastolic dysfunction. PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.
Figure 3

PBVI and echocardiographic stages of diastolic dysfunction. PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.

PBVI yielded overall good diagnostic accuracy for diastolic dysfunction [area under the ROC curve 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–0.94], with the best cut-off point corresponding to 413 mL/m2 and leading to a sensitivity of 60% (95% CI 38.5–80.3) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI 78.8–97.5) (Figure 4). E/e’, LA volume index, and sPAP were significantly higher in patients with PBVI >413 mL/m2 as compared to those below this threshold (Figure 5). PBVI was significantly associated with several echocardiographic indices of diastolic dysfunction and showed significant positive correlation with tissue-Doppler E/e’ ratio (r = 0.275, P = 0.026), sPAP (r = 0.284, P = 0.02), and LA volume index (r = 0.506, P < 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, PBVI was an independent predictor of LV diastolic dysfunction with elevated LAP (Table 2).

Diagnostic accuracy of PBVI for the diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction with increased mean left atrial pressure. AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.
Figure 4

Diagnostic accuracy of PBVI for the diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction with increased mean left atrial pressure. AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.

Echocardiographic parameters of diastolic function in patients with higher and lower PBVI. Patients with PBVI >413 mL/m2 (corresponding to the best cut-off point derived from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) had significantly higher values of E/e’, LAVI, and sPAP than the other subgroup of patients with PBVI ≤413 mL/m2. AUROC, area under the ROC curve; E/A, mitral valve E velocity divided by A-wave velocity; E/e’, mitral valve E velocity divided by mitral annular e’ velocity; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index; LAVI, left atrial volume index; sPAP, systolic pulmonary artery pressure.
Figure 5

Echocardiographic parameters of diastolic function in patients with higher and lower PBVI. Patients with PBVI >413 mL/m2 (corresponding to the best cut-off point derived from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) had significantly higher values of E/e’, LAVI, and sPAP than the other subgroup of patients with PBVI ≤413 mL/m2. AUROC, area under the ROC curve; E/A, mitral valve E velocity divided by A-wave velocity; E/e’, mitral valve E velocity divided by mitral annular e’ velocity; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index; LAVI, left atrial volume index; sPAP, systolic pulmonary artery pressure.

Table 2

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of CMR predictors of haemodynamic congestion

CharacteristicsUnivariate
Multivariatea
Odds ratio (95% CI)P-valueOdds ratio (95% CI)P-value
Age (years)1.01 (0.95–1.04)0.7480.98 (0.88–1.09)0.679
Male sex0.65 (0.18–2.32)0.5020.04 (0.0–5.95)0.204
NYHA class3.96 (1.67–9.39)0.0020.95 (0.16–5.52)0.305
LVEDVI (mL/m2)1.04 (1.01–1.07)0.0220.7 (0.32–1.53)0.366
LVSVI (mL/m2)1.09 (1.03–1.14)0.0021.63 (0.54–4.9)0.386
LVEF (%)1.05 (0.98–1.12)0.1440.66 (0.26–1.66)0.375
RVEDVI (mL/m2)1.06 (1.01–1.11)0.0430.65 (0.37–1.16)0.146
RVSVI (mL/m2)1.13 (1.03–1.23)0.0082.19 (0.85–5.59)0.103
RVEF (%)1.04 (0.96–1.12)0.3270.58 (0.29–1.14)0.115
MRb (binary)2.92 (1.02–8.34)0.0460.27 (0.25–6.34)0.770
LGE (binary)2.88 (0.84–9.92)0.0934.0 (0.24–65.44)0.332
Adenosine inducible perfusion defects (binary)1.93 (0.55–6.78)0.3050.35 (0.02–7.62)0.507
LV mass indexc (g/m2)1.01 (0.84–1.2)0.9320.86 (0.55–1.33)0.511
PBVIc (mL/m2)1.77 (1.34–2.33)<0.0011.97 (1.06–3.68)0.032
CharacteristicsUnivariate
Multivariatea
Odds ratio (95% CI)P-valueOdds ratio (95% CI)P-value
Age (years)1.01 (0.95–1.04)0.7480.98 (0.88–1.09)0.679
Male sex0.65 (0.18–2.32)0.5020.04 (0.0–5.95)0.204
NYHA class3.96 (1.67–9.39)0.0020.95 (0.16–5.52)0.305
LVEDVI (mL/m2)1.04 (1.01–1.07)0.0220.7 (0.32–1.53)0.366
LVSVI (mL/m2)1.09 (1.03–1.14)0.0021.63 (0.54–4.9)0.386
LVEF (%)1.05 (0.98–1.12)0.1440.66 (0.26–1.66)0.375
RVEDVI (mL/m2)1.06 (1.01–1.11)0.0430.65 (0.37–1.16)0.146
RVSVI (mL/m2)1.13 (1.03–1.23)0.0082.19 (0.85–5.59)0.103
RVEF (%)1.04 (0.96–1.12)0.3270.58 (0.29–1.14)0.115
MRb (binary)2.92 (1.02–8.34)0.0460.27 (0.25–6.34)0.770
LGE (binary)2.88 (0.84–9.92)0.0934.0 (0.24–65.44)0.332
Adenosine inducible perfusion defects (binary)1.93 (0.55–6.78)0.3050.35 (0.02–7.62)0.507
LV mass indexc (g/m2)1.01 (0.84–1.2)0.9320.86 (0.55–1.33)0.511
PBVIc (mL/m2)1.77 (1.34–2.33)<0.0011.97 (1.06–3.68)0.032

CI, confidence interval; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; LVEDVI, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.

a

Adjusted for all covariates (CI, LGE, LVEDVI, LVEF, NYHA, and PBVI.) listed in the tables.

b

At least moderate.

c

Per 10% increase.

Table 2

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of CMR predictors of haemodynamic congestion

CharacteristicsUnivariate
Multivariatea
Odds ratio (95% CI)P-valueOdds ratio (95% CI)P-value
Age (years)1.01 (0.95–1.04)0.7480.98 (0.88–1.09)0.679
Male sex0.65 (0.18–2.32)0.5020.04 (0.0–5.95)0.204
NYHA class3.96 (1.67–9.39)0.0020.95 (0.16–5.52)0.305
LVEDVI (mL/m2)1.04 (1.01–1.07)0.0220.7 (0.32–1.53)0.366
LVSVI (mL/m2)1.09 (1.03–1.14)0.0021.63 (0.54–4.9)0.386
LVEF (%)1.05 (0.98–1.12)0.1440.66 (0.26–1.66)0.375
RVEDVI (mL/m2)1.06 (1.01–1.11)0.0430.65 (0.37–1.16)0.146
RVSVI (mL/m2)1.13 (1.03–1.23)0.0082.19 (0.85–5.59)0.103
RVEF (%)1.04 (0.96–1.12)0.3270.58 (0.29–1.14)0.115
MRb (binary)2.92 (1.02–8.34)0.0460.27 (0.25–6.34)0.770
LGE (binary)2.88 (0.84–9.92)0.0934.0 (0.24–65.44)0.332
Adenosine inducible perfusion defects (binary)1.93 (0.55–6.78)0.3050.35 (0.02–7.62)0.507
LV mass indexc (g/m2)1.01 (0.84–1.2)0.9320.86 (0.55–1.33)0.511
PBVIc (mL/m2)1.77 (1.34–2.33)<0.0011.97 (1.06–3.68)0.032
CharacteristicsUnivariate
Multivariatea
Odds ratio (95% CI)P-valueOdds ratio (95% CI)P-value
Age (years)1.01 (0.95–1.04)0.7480.98 (0.88–1.09)0.679
Male sex0.65 (0.18–2.32)0.5020.04 (0.0–5.95)0.204
NYHA class3.96 (1.67–9.39)0.0020.95 (0.16–5.52)0.305
LVEDVI (mL/m2)1.04 (1.01–1.07)0.0220.7 (0.32–1.53)0.366
LVSVI (mL/m2)1.09 (1.03–1.14)0.0021.63 (0.54–4.9)0.386
LVEF (%)1.05 (0.98–1.12)0.1440.66 (0.26–1.66)0.375
RVEDVI (mL/m2)1.06 (1.01–1.11)0.0430.65 (0.37–1.16)0.146
RVSVI (mL/m2)1.13 (1.03–1.23)0.0082.19 (0.85–5.59)0.103
RVEF (%)1.04 (0.96–1.12)0.3270.58 (0.29–1.14)0.115
MRb (binary)2.92 (1.02–8.34)0.0460.27 (0.25–6.34)0.770
LGE (binary)2.88 (0.84–9.92)0.0934.0 (0.24–65.44)0.332
Adenosine inducible perfusion defects (binary)1.93 (0.55–6.78)0.3050.35 (0.02–7.62)0.507
LV mass indexc (g/m2)1.01 (0.84–1.2)0.9320.86 (0.55–1.33)0.511
PBVIc (mL/m2)1.77 (1.34–2.33)<0.0011.97 (1.06–3.68)0.032

CI, confidence interval; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; LVEDVI, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PBVI, pulmonary blood volume index.

a

Adjusted for all covariates (CI, LGE, LVEDVI, LVEF, NYHA, and PBVI.) listed in the tables.

b

At least moderate.

c

Per 10% increase.

Discussion

In the present study, we used first-pass perfusion CMR imaging to estimate pulmonary blood volume and transit time in patients with HCM. The major findings of this study were that: (i) increases in PBVI yield good diagnostic accuracy for the detection of diastolic dysfunction with elevated LAP (as defined by echocardiography), providing excellent specificity at the best cut-off level of 413 mL/m2; (ii) HCM patients with Grade II or III diastolic dysfunction also showed significantly larger PBVI and longer PTTc as compared to patients with normal LAP; and (iii) the magnitude of PBVI correlates with the severity of diastolic dysfunction and worsening functional capacity.

The symptoms in patients with HCM largely result from elevated mean LAP (‘backward’ HF).1 However, in many cases backward and forward failure coexist in a complex interplay of pathophysiological mechanisms, including coronary microvascular dysfunction with reduced arteriolar density and structural abnormalities of intramural coronary arterioles, replacement fibrosis, myocyte disarray, mitral regurgitation associated with systolic anterior movement, and LV outflow tract obstruction as well as elevated LV end-diastolic pressure, eventually leading to the elevation of pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure (or haemodynamic congestion) and, at an advanced stage, to overt pulmonary congestion.15–18

Since haemodynamic derangements usually precede clinical symptoms, the ability to detect and grade haemodynamic congestion from non-invasive measurements is a highly desirable though unmet clinical need.19 Echocardiography is the recommended non-invasive imaging modality for the evaluation of LV diastolic function, but may be sometimes misleading, with key indices yielding discrepant information, especially in HCM,20 and the use of many parameters is perceived too complex and not practical to perform and repeat on every patient.8 Furthermore, diagnostic accuracy of the 2009 and 2016 echocardiographic grading algorithms for the diagnosis of LV diastolic dysfunction has been recently questioned by the results of the multicentre EACVI Euro-Filling study.21

CMR is the gold-standard imaging technique for the non-invasive quantification of blood flow and volumes22 and has been increasingly recognized as a valuable complement to TTE for the clinical evaluation of HCM, providing a number of unique strengths which make it particularly well suited to detailed characterization of the HCM phenotype, and therefore, an important aid for diagnosis and potentially prognosis.23–26

Furthermore, comprehensive CMR imaging protocols have been advocated to improve diagnosis and targeted management of HF with preserved LV ejection fraction.27

While a non-invasive gold standard for the quantification of diastolic function in HCM is still an unmet clinical need,28 CMR has been proposed as an alternative non-invasive modality for the evaluation of LV diastolic function, although the relatively low temporal resolution—i.e. 20–30 ms—limited its clinical application so far.29,30 More recently, PBVI by CMR has proved to be helpful to quantitatively determine haemodynamic congestion—meaning a greater volume of blood in the pulmonary circulation leading to higher hydrostatic pressure—in HF outpatients with reduced ejection fraction11 and adults with repaired congenital heart disease.31

In this study, we confirmed previous findings11,32 and reported a positive relationship between PBVI and echocardiographic stages of diastolic dysfunction in a cohort of both asymptomatic and symptomatic HCM patients. Furthermore, increasing values of PBVI were significantly associated with worsening functional status, i.e. higher NYHA functional class and lower exercise time duration.

Overall, PBVI might be considered as a quantitative and reproducible biomarker of haemodynamic congestion—a well-recognized unmet clinical need19—and might represent a specific tool to unmask poor haemodynamic reserve, eventually useful for the clarification of the pathophysiology underlying impaired functional capacity and HF symptoms in HCM patients. Assessment of resting PBVI and transit time kinetics may compliment functional analysis and tissue characterization and can be ideally performed on a routine basis without affecting total scan time duration.

After adenosine infusion, PTTc significantly increased in patients with better diastolic function, while it remained unchanged in patients with diastolic dysfunction and elevated LAP. We know that similar to the systemic and coronary circulation, the pulmonary arteries dilate in response to purine nucleoside adenosine which has a direct endothelium-independent effect on the A2b receptor in vascular smooth muscle.33 We may argue that reduced pulmonary resistance in response to the endothelium-independent vasodilatory effect of adenosine would lead to an increased transit time of the contrast agent (PTT = PBV/cardiac output) due to the distention of the pulmonary vascular bed and recruitment of the pulmonary microcirculation, overall expanding the pulmonary capillary surface area and volume.34 Conversely, pulmonary vasodilatory reserve may have been exhausted in our HCM patients with elevated LAP. However, other authors would consider constant PTTc at rest and during stress in keeping with an intact vasoreactive response to accommodate increased cardiac output during adenosine infusion.33 A number of factors may act on endothelium-independent function of the pulmonary vasculature and accuracy of PTT measurement, namely active cigarette smoking, which has been associated with impaired vasoreactivity during CMR adenosine stress testing, adenosine dosing and delay between stress and rest perfusion imaging acquisition. Nevertheless, the comparison of pulmonary blood volume variation over the cardiac cycle, as previously described,12,35 at rest and during adenosine stress would best explain the differences in central transit time kinetics observed between patients with increased and normal LAP.

Further studies are warranted in order to: (i) assess the clinical utility and prognostic value of serial PBVI analysis in HCM population as well as in other clinical settings; (ii) investigate the association between PBVI and serum levels of natriuretic peptides; (iii) investigate the relationship between symptoms and PBVI before and after structural interventions, i.e. alcohol septal ablation; (iv) test the effect of adenosine—and/or exercise stress CMR—on pulmonary vascular function and right heart-pulmonary circulation unit; (v) test the potential usefulness PBVI in the assessment of HF with preserved LV ejection fraction, specifically in the subgroup in which diastolic function assessment according to the current guidelines is normal or indeterminate; and (vi) test the diagnostic accuracy of PBVI with established gold-standard invasive techniques for the measurement of pulmonary artery wedge pressure and LV end-diastolic pressure.

Finally, from a wider perspective, adenosine stress CMR imaging might represent a unique tool for simultaneous assessment of myocardial ischaemia—also able to distinguish between obstructive epicardial CAD and microvascular coronary dysfunction36—and diastolic function reserve, which are both involved in a vicious cycle harbinger of future risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction hospitalization.37

Limitations

A few limitations should be addressed. Firstly, due to the retrospective design, the referral to stress perfusion CMR imaging may have introduced a selection bias of patients with higher burden of symptoms, however, most patients presented with NYHA functional III or better. Secondly, right ventricular stroke volume was calculated as the difference between end-diastolic and end-systolic volume. For the purpose of this study, measurement of forward flow by phase-contrast velocity mapping would have been more precise; however, exclusion of patients with moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation attenuated possible inaccuracy. Thirdly, we could not exclude coexisting coronary artery disease as a possible mechanism underlying diastolic dysfunction in all patients, however, this was out of the main scope of our analysis. Fourthly, because of the limited sample size, the multivariable analysis is likely to be underpowered to derive a robust predictive model and our findings should only be intended as hypothesis-generating. Fifthly, the accuracy of measuring PBVI may be limited due to the uncertain relationship between the bolus concentration of contrast material and the SI on CMR images used for PTT measurements. Sixthly, we did not obtain cardiac volumes during stress and could not assess changes in PBVI and cardiac output after adenosine administration. Furthermore, invasive haemodynamic measurements derived from right and/or left heart catheterization were not available in the current study, however it has been recently showed that PTT prolongation was significantly associated with haemodynamic abnormalities at invasive haemodynamic testing by right and left heart catheterization such as elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, LV end-diastolic pressure, reduced cardiac index, and oxygen saturation, of which increased pulmonary capillary wedge pressure demonstrated the strongest association.10 Finally, serum levels of natriuretic peptides, cardiopulmonary exercise testing data, and T1 mapping indices were not routinely available in our series.

Conclusions

PBVI analysis is a promising application for assessment of haemodynamic congestion which may effectively compliment the functional assessment and tissue characterization by CMR in patients with HCM. Future prospective studies should investigate the prognostic role and the clinical utility of PBVI in targeted management of patients with HCM, fostering the wider objective of imaging-guided precision medicine in HF.

Acknowledgements

EACVI (F.R./S.E.P.): F.R. and S.E.P. acknowledge the support through a grant by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. S.E.P. acknowledges support from the NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre and the ‘SmartHeart’ EPSRC programme grant (EP/P001009/1). K.F. acknowledges support by The Medical College of Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital Trust, an independent registered charity that promotes and advances medical and dental education and research at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support.

Funding

This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Research Training Fellowship [203553/Z/Z to N.A.]. This work was directly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Barts Heart Centre.

Conflict of interest: S.E.P. provides Consultancy to Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada and has options for shares. And all other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

1

Naidu
SS.
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Foreword by Bernard Gersh and Historical Context by Eugene Braunwald
.
London
:
Springer
;
2014
.

2

Authors/Task Force Members,

Elliott
PM
,
Anastasakis
A
,
Borger
MA
,
Borggrefe
M
,
Cecchi
F
et al. .
2014 ESC Guidelines on diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: the task force for the diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)
.
Eur Heart J
2014
;
35
:
2733
79
.

3

Cardim
N
,
Galderisi
M
,
Edvardsen
T
,
Plein
S
,
Popescu
BA
,
D'Andrea
A
et al. .
Role of multimodality cardiac imaging in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: an expert consensus of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Endorsed by the Saudi Heart Association
.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
2015
;
16
:
280.

4

Teekakirikul
P
,
Padera
RF
,
Seidman
JG
,
Seidman
CE.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: translating cellular cross talk into therapeutics
.
J Cell Biol
2012
;
199
:
417
21
.

5

Ponikowski
P
,
Voors
AA
,
Anker
SD
,
Bueno
H
,
Cleland
JG
,
Coats
AJ
et al. .
2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC
.
Eur Heart J
2016
;
37
:
2129
200
.

6

Mottram
PM
,
Marwick
TH.
Assessment of diastolic function: what the general cardiologist needs to know
.
Heart
2005
;
91
:
681
95
.

7

Biagini
E
,
Spirito
P
,
Rocchi
G
,
Ferlito
M
,
Rosmini
S
,
Lai
F
et al. .
Prognostic implications of the Doppler restrictive filling pattern in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
.
Am J Cardiol
2009
;
104
:
1727
31
.

8

Nagueh
SF
,
Smiseth
OA
,
Appleton
CP
,
Byrd
BF
3rd
,
Dokainish
H
,
Edvardsen
T
et al. .
Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging
.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
2016
;
17
:
1321
60
.

9

Nagueh
SF
,
Bierig
SM
,
Budoff
MJ
,
Desai
M
,
Dilsizian
V
,
Eidem
B
et al. .
American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations for multimodality cardiovascular imaging of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: endorsed by the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
.
J Am Soc Echocardiogr
2011
;
24
:
473
98
.

10

Cao
JJ
,
Li
L
,
McLaughlin
J
,
Passick
M.
Prolonged central circulation transit time in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF by magnetic resonance imaging
.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
2018
;
19
:
339
46
.

11

Ricci
F
,
Barison
A
,
Todiere
G
,
Mantini
C
,
Cotroneo
AR
,
Emdin
M
et al. .
Prognostic value of pulmonary blood volume by first-pass contrast-enhanced CMR in heart failure outpatients: the PROVE-HF study
.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
2018
;
19
:
896
904
.

12

Ugander
M
,
Kanski
M
,
Engblom
H
,
Gotberg
M
,
Olivecrona
GK
,
Erlinge
D
et al. .
Pulmonary blood volume variation decreases after myocardial infarction in pigs: a quantitative and noninvasive MR imaging measure of heart failure
.
Radiology
2010
;
256
:
415
23
.

13

Kellman
P
,
Hansen
MS
,
Nielles-Vallespin
S
,
Nickander
J
,
Themudo
R
,
Ugander
M
et al. .
Myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance: optimized dual sequence and reconstruction for quantification
.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
2017
;
19
:
43.

14

Petersen
SE
,
Aung
N
,
Sanghvi
MM
,
Zemrak
F
,
Fung
K
,
Paiva
JM
et al. .
Reference ranges for cardiac structure and function using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in Caucasians from the UK Biobank population cohort
.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
2017
;
19
:
18.

15

Maron
MS
,
Olivotto
I
,
Maron
BJ
,
Prasad
SK
,
Cecchi
F
,
Udelson
JE
et al. .
The case for myocardial ischemia in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2009
;
54
:
866
75
.

16

Cecchi
F
,
Olivotto
I
,
Gistri
R
,
Lorenzoni
R
,
Chiriatti
G
,
Camici
PG.
Coronary microvascular dysfunction and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
.
N Engl J Med
2003
;
349
:
1027
35
.

17

Petersen
SE
,
Jerosch-Herold
M
,
Hudsmith
LE
,
Robson
MD
,
Francis
JM
,
Doll
HA
et al. .
Evidence for microvascular dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: new insights from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
.
Circulation
2007
;
115
:
2418
25
.

18

Crea
F
,
Camici
PG
,
Bairey Merz
CN.
Coronary microvascular dysfunction: an update
.
Eur Heart J
2014
;
35
:
1101
11
.

19

Gheorghiade
M
,
Follath
F
,
Ponikowski
P
,
Barsuk
JH
,
Blair
JE
,
Cleland
JG
et al. .
Assessing and grading congestion in acute heart failure: a scientific statement from the acute heart failure committee of the heart failure association of the European Society of Cardiology and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
.
Eur J Heart Fail
2010
;
12
:
423
33
.

20

Geske
JB
,
Sorajja
P
,
Nishimura
RA
,
Ommen
SR.
Evaluation of left ventricular filling pressures by Doppler echocardiography in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: correlation with direct left atrial pressure measurement at cardiac catheterization
.
Circulation
2007
;
116
:
2702
8
.

21

Lancellotti
P
,
Galderisi
M
,
Edvardsen
T
,
Donal
E
,
Goliasch
G
,
Cardim
N
et al. .
Echo-Doppler estimation of left ventricular filling pressure: results of the multicentre EACVI Euro-Filling study
.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
2017
;
18
:
961
8
.

22

Aquaro
GD
,
Barison
A
,
Todiere
G
,
Festa
P
,
Ait-Ali
L
,
Lombardi
M
et al. .
Cardiac magnetic resonance ‘virtual catheterization’ for the quantification of valvular regurgitations and cardiac shunt
.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)
2015
;
16
:
663
70
.

23

Maron
MS.
Clinical utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
2012
;
14
:
13.

24

Sen-Chowdhry
S
,
Jacoby
D
,
Moon
JC
,
McKenna
WJ.
Update on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and a guide to the guidelines
.
Nat Rev Cardiol
2016
;
13
:
651
75
.

25

Todiere
G
,
Aquaro
GD
,
Piaggi
P
,
Formisano
F
,
Barison
A
,
Masci
PG
et al. .
Progression of myocardial fibrosis assessed with cardiac magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2012
;
60
:
922
9
.

26

Captur
G
,
Lopes
LR
,
Mohun
TJ
,
Patel
V
,
Li
C
,
Bassett
P
et al. .
Prediction of sarcomere mutations in subclinical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
.
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging
2014
;
7
:
863
71
.

27

Pathan
F
,
Puntmann
VO
,
Nagel
E.
Role of cardiac magnetic resonance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
.
Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep
2018
;
11
:
10.

28

Rakowski
H
,
Carasso
S.
Quantifying diastolic function in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: the ongoing search for the holy grail
.
Circulation
2007
;
116
:
2662
5
.

29

Westenberg
JJ.
CMR for assessment of diastolic function
.
Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep
2011
;
4
:
149
58
.

30

Grassedonio
E
,
Todiere
G
,
La Grutta
L
,
Toia
P
,
Gentile
GD
,
Galia
M
et al. .
Assessment of atrial diastolic function in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by cine magnetic resonance imaging
.
Radiol Med
2015
;
120
:
714
22
.

31

Ait Ali
L
,
Aquaro
GD
,
Peritore
G
,
Ricci
F
,
De Marchi
D
,
Emdin
M
et al. .
Cardiac magnetic resonance evaluation of pulmonary transit time and blood volume in adult congenital heart disease
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2019
;
50
:
779
86
.

32

Brittain
EL
,
Doss
LN
,
Saliba
L
,
Irani
W
,
Byrd
BF
3rd
,
Monahan
K.
Feasibility and diagnostic potential of pulmonary transit time measurement by contrast echocardiography: a pilot study
.
Echocardiography
2015
;
32
:
1564
71
.

33

Cao
JJ
,
Wang
S
,
Roth
M
,
Schapiro
W
,
Wang
Y
,
Reichek
N.
Adenosine induced pulmonary vasodilation is blocked by active cigarette smoking, an evaluation by pulmonary transit time with first pass perfusion MRI
.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
2009
;
11
:
O41.

34

Hamid
Q
,
Shannon
J
,
Martin
J.
Physiologic Basis of Respiratory Disease. Canada: BC Decker Incorporated;
2005
.

35

Carlsson
M
,
Cain
P
,
Holmqvist
C
,
Stahlberg
F
,
Lundback
S
,
Arheden
H.
Total heart volume variation throughout the cardiac cycle in humans
.
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol
2004
;
287
:
H243
50
.

36

Liu
A
,
Wijesurendra
RS
,
Liu
JM
,
Greiser
A
,
Jerosch-Herold
M
,
Forfar
JC
et al. .
Gadolinium-free cardiac MR stress T1-mapping to distinguish epicardial from microvascular coronary disease
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2018
;
71
:
957
68
.

37

Nelson
MD
,
Wei
J
,
Bairey Merz
CN.
Coronary microvascular dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as female-pattern cardiovascular disease: the chicken or the egg?
Eur Heart J
2018
;
39
:
850
2
.

Author notes

Fabrizio Ricci and Nay Aung are joint first authors.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.