Defining myocardial fibrosis in haemodialysis patients with non-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance.

BACKGROUND: Extent of myocardial fibrosis (MF) determined using late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) predicts outcomes, but gadolinium is contraindicated in advanced renal disease. We assessed the ability of native T1-mapping to identify and quantify MF in aortic stenosis patients (AS) as a model for use in haemodialysis patients. METHODS: We compared the ability to identify areas of replacement-MF using native T1-mapping to LGE in 25 AS patients at 3 T. We assessed agreement between extent of MF defined by LGE full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) and the LGE 3-standard-deviations (3SD) in AS patients and nine T1 thresholding-techniques, with thresholds set 2-to-9 standard-deviations above normal-range (1083 ± 33 ms). A further technique was tested that set an individual T1-threshold for each patient (T11SD). The technique that agreed most strongly with FWHM or 3SD in AS patients was used to compare extent of MF between AS (n = 25) and haemodialysis patients (n = 25). RESULTS: Twenty-six areas of enhancement were identified on LGE images, with 25 corresponding areas of discretely increased native T1 signal identified on T1 maps. Global T1 was higher in haemodialysis than AS patients (1279 ms ± 5.8 vs 1143 ms ± 12.49, P < 0.01). No signal-threshold technique derived from standard-deviations above normal-range associated with FWHM or 3SD. T11SD correlated with FWHM in AS patients (r = 0.55) with moderate agreement (ICC = 0.64), (but not with 3SD). Extent of MF defined by T11SD was higher in haemodialysis vs AS patients (21.92% ± 1 vs 18.24% ± 1.4, P = 0.038), as was T1 in regions-of-interest defined as scar (1390 ± 8.7 vs 1276 ms ± 20.5, P < 0.01). There was no difference in the relative difference between remote myocardium and regions defined as scar, between groups (111.4 ms ± 7.6 vs 133.2 ms ± 17.5, P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Areas of MF are identifiable on native T1 maps, but absolute thresholds to define extent of MF could not be determined. Histological studies are needed to assess the ability of native-T1 signal-thresholding techniques to define extent of MF in haemodialysis patients. Data is taken from the PRIMID-AS (NCT01658345) and CYCLE-HD studies (ISRCTN11299707).

Native T1 mapping: inter-study, inter-observer and inter-center reproducibility in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Native T1 mapping is a cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique that associates with markers of fibrosis and strain in hemodialysis patients. The reproducibility of T1 mapping in hemodialysis patients, prone to changes in fluid status, is unknown. Accurate quantification of myocardial fibrosis in this population has prognostic potential. METHODS: Using 3 Tesla CMR, we report the results of 1) the inter-study, inter-observer and intra-observer reproducibility of native T1 mapping in 10 hemodialysis patients; 2) inter-study reproducibility of left ventricular (LV) structure and function in 10 hemodialysis patients; 3) the agreement of native T1 map and native T1 phantom analyses between two centres in 20 hemodialysis patients; 4) the effect of changes in markers of fluid status on native T1 values in 10 hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: Inter-study, inter-observer and intra-observer variability of native T1 mapping were excellent with co-efficients of variation (CoV) of 0.7, 0.3 and 0.4% respectively. Inter-study CoV for LV structure and function were: LV mass = 1%; ejection fraction = 1.1%; LV end-diastolic volume = 5.2%; LV end-systolic volume = 5.6%. Inter-centre variability of analysis techniques were excellent with CoV for basal and mid-native T1 slices between 0.8-1.2%. Phantom analyses showed comparable native T1 times between centres, despite different scanners and acquisition sequences (centre 1: 1192.7 ± 7.5 ms, centre 2: 1205.5 ± 5 ms). For the 10 patients who underwent inter-study testing, change in body weight (Δweight) between scans correlated with change in LV end-diastolic volume (ΔLVEDV) (r = 0.682;P = 0.03) representing altered fluid status between scans. There were no correlations between change in native T1 between scans (ΔT1) and ΔLVEDV or Δweight (P > 0.6). Linear regression confirmed ΔT1 was unaffected by ΔLVEDV or Δweight (P > 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial native T1 is reproducible in HD patients and unaffected by changes in fluid status at the levels we observed. Native T1 mapping is a potential imaging biomarker for myocardial fibrosis in patients with end-stage renal disease.