Efficacy of modified time of flight magnetic resonance venography in diagnosis of iliac vein compression syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the diagnostic efficacy of modified time of flight magnetic resonance venography (mTOF-MRV) for iliac vein compression syndrome diagnosis by optimizing the scanning parameters and improving image quality. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 69 patients who underwent routine time of flight magnetic resonance venography (TOF-MRV) and 85 patients who received mTOF-MRV. Assessment of image quality of the two methods was performed by two radiologists using a four-point method. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of TOF-MRV and mTOF-MRV in the diagnosis of significant iliac vein compression (stenosis >50%) were analyzed by calculating the iliac vein stenosis rates of the two methods and using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard. RESULTS: Inter-observer assessment of objective data measurement revealed excellent agreement {ICC [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.972 (0.953 to 0.983) for TOF-MRV and 0.979 (0.965 to 0.988) for m-TOF MRV, 0.976 (0.960 to 0.986) for DSA}. The mean error of stenosis rate of mTOF-MRV was markedly smaller than that of TOF-MRV (p < 0.05). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of TOF-MRV in the diagnosis of significant stenosis were 100%, 95%, 67% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of mTOF-MRV were 100%. The mean image score for the mTOF-MRV was 3.63 ± 0.59, which was significantly higher compared with that of TOF-MRV (2.19 ± 0.42). CONCLUSION: mTOF-MRV has better image quality and can accurately diagnose venous stenosis. Therefore, it can be used for the detection of iliac vein compression syndrome and further assessment after endovascular interventions.

Epicardial adipose tissue density is a better predictor of cardiometabolic risk in HFpEF patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) accumulation is associated with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors and prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The correlation between EAT density and cardiometabolic risk and the effect of EAT density on clinical outcome in HFpEF remain unclear. We evaluated the relationship between EAT density and cardiometabolic risk factors, also the prognostic value of EAT density in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: We included 154 HFpEF patients who underwent noncontrast cardiac computed tomography (CT) and all patients received follow-up. EAT density and volume were quantified semi-automatically. The associations of EAT density and volume with cardiometabolic risk factors, metabolic syndrome and the prognostic impact of EAT density were analyzed. RESULTS: Lower EAT density was associated with adverse changes in cardiometabolic risk factors. Each 1 HU increase in fat density, BMI was 0.14 kg/m2 lower (95% CI 0.08-0.21), waist circumference was 0.34 cm lower (95% CI 0.12-0.55), non-HDL-cholesterol was 0.02 mmol/L lower (95% CI 0-0.04), triglyceride was 0.03 mmol/L lower (95% CI 0.01-0.04), fasting plasma glucose was 0.05 mmol/L lower (95% CI 0.02-0.08), TyG index was 0.03 lower (95% CI 0.02-0.04), Log2(TG/HDL-C) was 0.03 lower (95% CI 0.02-0.05), METS-IR was 0.36 lower (95% CI 0.23-0.49), MetS Z-score was 0.04 lower (95% CI 0.02-0.06), and Log2(CACS + 1) was 0.09 lower (95% CI 0.02-0.15). After adjusting for BMI and EAT volume, the associations of non-HDL-cholesterol, triglyceride, fasting plasma glucose, insulin resistance indexes, MetS Z-score, and CACS with fat density remained significant. The area under the curve (AUC) for the presence and severity of metabolic syndrome was greater in EAT density than volume (AUC: 0.731 vs 0.694, 0.735 vs 0.662, respectively). Over a median follow-up of 16 months, the cumulative incidence of heart failure readmission and composite endpoint increased with lower level of EAT density (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EAT density was an independent impact factor of cardiometabolic risk in HFpEF. EAT density might have better predictive value than EAT volume for metabolic syndrome and it might have prognostic value in patients with HFpEF.