Point estimate and reference normality interval of MRI-derived myocardial extracellular volume in healthy subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 137 Downloads
To estimate the MRI-derived myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) in healthy subjects together with reference normality interval.
The study was registered on PROSPERO and reported according to PRISMA. In October 2017, a systematic search (MEDLINE/EMBASE) was performed for articles reporting MRI-derived ECV in healthy subjects. The pooled ECV (pECV) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random-effect model; the normality interval was calculated as pECV ± 2 root mean square of all study standard deviations. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for assessing study quality, subgroup/meta-regression analyses for technical/biological covariates, and Egger test for publication bias risk.
Of 282 articles, 56 were analyzed totaling 1851 subjects with age 16–68 years, body mass index 23–28 kg/m2, and left ventricular ejection fraction 58–74%. Contrast dose varied from 0.075 to 0.200 mmol/kg. Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 92%). The pECV was 25.6% (95% CI 25.2–26.0%) with a normality interval of 19.6–31.6%. pECV was slightly increasing with age (β = 0.03%, p = 0.038) and slightly decreasing with the percentage of males (β = − 0.02%, p = 0.053). Sequence type significantly (p = 0.003) impacted on pECV: the normal interval was 19.9–31.9% for MOLLI and 20.3–33.5% for ShMOLLI. Contrast type/dose, time of acquisition, and magnetic field strength did not significantly impact pECV (p > 0.093). Quality was moderate or high in 48/56 studies (86%). No risk of publication bias (p = 0.728).
Myocardial pECV in healthy subjects was 25.6%, increasing by 0.03% for each year of age. The ECV normality interval was 19.9–31.9% for MOLLI and 20.3–33.5% for ShMOLLI.
• The pooled estimate of normal MRI-derived ECV based on 1851 subjects was 25.6%, slightly increasing with age and slightly decreasing with the percentage of males.
• MRI-derived ECV was independent of contrast type/dose and field strength but dependent on the imaging sequence.
• The modeled normality reference interval of MRI-derived ECV was 19.9–31.9% for the MOLLI sequence and 20.3–33.5% for the ShMOLLI sequence.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Meta-analysis Fibrosis Cardiomyopathies Biomarkers
Late gadolinium enhancement
Modified Look-Locker inversion recovery
Magnetic resonance imaging
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Shortened modified Look-Locker inversion recovery
This study was supported by local research funds of the IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, a Clinical Research Hospital partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Francesco Sardanelli.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Francesco Sardanelli declares to have received grants from or being a member of speakers’ bureau/advisory board for Bayer, Bracco, and General Electric. Francesco Secchi and Giovanni Di Leo have been sponsored to congresses by Bracco Imaging SpA (Milan, Italy). Simone Schiaffino declares to have received grants from or being a member of speakers’ bureau for General Electric.
Statistics and biometry
Federico Ambrogi provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Federico Ambrogi has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because the article type is a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because the article type is a systematic review with meta-analysis.
• Performed at one institution
- 12.Cannaò PM, Altabella L, Petrini M, Alì M, Secchi F, Sardanelli F (2016) Novel cardiac magnetic resonance biomarkers: native T1 and extracellular volume myocardial mapping. Eur Heart J Suppl 18:E64–E71Google Scholar
- 17.Fontana M, White SK, Banypersad SM et al (2012) Comparison of T1 mapping techniques for ECV quantification. Histological validation and reproducibility of ShMOLLI versus multibreath-hold T1 quantification equilibrium contrast CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 14:88CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Messroghli DR, Niendorf T, Schulz-Menger J, Dietz R, Friedrich MG (2003) T1 mapping in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 5:353–359Google Scholar
- 22.St John Sutton MG, Lie JT, Anderson KR, O'Brien PC, Frye RL (1980) Histopathological specificity of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Myocardial fibre disarray and myocardial fibrosis. Br Heart J 44:433–443Google Scholar
- 24.Moon JC, Messroghli DR, Kellman P et al (2013) Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) and CMR Working Group of the European Society of Cardiology consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:92CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Di Leo G, Zanardo M, Schiaffino S, Cannaò PM, Secchi F, Sardanelli F (2017) T1-mapping-derived myocardial ECVin healthy subjects in relation to the imaging protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017067360. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017067360. Accessed 3 Mar 2018
- 26.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097Google Scholar
- 30.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 57:289–300Google Scholar
- 31.Storz C, Hetterich H, Lorbeer R et al (2018) Myocardial tissue characterization by contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in subjects with prediabetes, diabetes, and normal controls with preserved ejection fraction from the general population. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 19:701–708CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 3 Mar 2018
- 36.Mordi IR, Singh S, Rudd A et al (2018) Comprehensive echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance evaluation differentiates among heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients, hypertensive patients, and healthy control subjects. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 11:577–585CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 40.Boentert M, Florian A, Dräger B, Young P, Yilmaz A (2016) Pattern and prognostic value of cardiac involvement in patients with late-onset pompe disease: a comprehensive cardiovascular magnetic resonance approach. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 18:91Google Scholar
- 48.Olivieri LJ, Kellman P, McCarter RJ, Cross RR, Hansen MS, Spurney CF (2016) Native T1 values identify myocardial changes and stratify disease severity in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 18:72Google Scholar
- 55.Barison A, Gargani L, De Marchi D et al (2015) Early myocardial and skeletal muscle interstitial remodelling in systemic sclerosis: insights from extracellular volume quantification using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16:74–80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 63.Mehta BB, Auger DA, Gonzalez JA et al (2015) Detection of elevated right ventricular extracellular volume in pulmonary hypertension using accelerated and navigator-gated Look-Locker imaging for cardiac T1 estimation (ANGIE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17:110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 65.Singh A, Horsfield MA, Bekele S, Khan JN, Greiser A, McCann GP (2015) Myocardial T1 and extracellular volume fraction measurement in asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis: reproducibility and comparison with age-matched controls. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16:763–770Google Scholar
- 67.Chin CW, Semple S, Malley T et al (2014) Optimization and comparison of myocardial T1 techniques at 3T in patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:556–565Google Scholar
- 70.Florian A, Ludwig A, Rösch S, Yildiz H, Sechtem U, Yilmaz A (2014) Myocardial fibrosis imaging based on T1-mapping and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) measurement in muscular dystrophy patients: diagnostic value compared with conventional late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:1004–1012Google Scholar
- 85.Mongeon FP, Jerosch-Herold M, Coelho-Filho OR, Blankstein R, Falk RH, Kwong RY (2012) Quantification of extracellular matrix expansion by CMR in infiltrative heart disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5:897–907Google Scholar
- 88.Broberg CS, Chugh SS, Conklin C, Sahn DJ, Jerosch-Herold M (2010) Quantification of diffuse myocardial fibrosis and its association with myocardial dysfunction in congenital heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 3:727–734Google Scholar
- 95.Gottbrecht M, Kramer CM, Salerno M (2018) Native T1 and extracellular volume measurements by cardiac MRI in healthy adults: a meta-Analysis. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180226
- 98.Robison S, Karur GR, Wald RM, Thavendiranathan P, Crean AM, Hanneman K (2018) Noninvasive hematocrit assessment for cardiovascular magnetic resonance extracellular volume quantification using a point-of-care device and synthetic derivation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 20:19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 99.Messroghli DR, Moon JC, Ferreira VM et al (2017) Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: a consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 19:75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar