Title |
Relationship between cardiac diffusion tensor imaging parameters and anthropometrics in healthy volunteers
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0215-0 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
L.A. McGill, P.F. Ferreira, A.D. Scott, S. Nielles-Vallespin, A. Giannakidis, P.J. Kilner, P.D. Gatehouse, R. de Silva, D.N. Firmin, D.J. Pennell |
Abstract |
In vivo cardiac diffusion tensor imaging (cDTI) is uniquely capable of interrogating laminar myocardial dynamics non-invasively. A comprehensive dataset of quantative parameters and comparison with subject anthropometrics is required. cDTI was performed at 3T with a diffusion weighted STEAM sequence. Data was acquired from the mid left ventricle in 43 subjects during the systolic and diastolic pauses. Global and regional values were determined for fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), helix angle gradient (HAg, degrees/%depth) and the secondary eigenvector angulation (E2A). Regression analysis was performed between global values and subject anthropometrics. All cDTI parameters displayed regional heterogeneity. The RR interval had a significant, but clinically small effect on systolic values for FA, HAg and E2A. Male sex and increasing left ventricular end diastolic volume were associated with increased systolic HAg. Diastolic HAg and systolic E2A were both directly related to left ventricular mass and body surface area. There was an inverse relationship between E2A mobility and both age and ejection fraction. Future interpretations of quantitative cDTI data should take into account anthropometric variations observed with patient age, body surface area and left ventricular measurements. Further work determining the impact of technical factors such as strain and SNR is required. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 25% |
Cyprus | 1 | 13% |
Spain | 1 | 13% |
Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 55 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 32% |
Researcher | 7 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 18% |
Unknown | 10 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Engineering | 17 | 30% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
Physics and Astronomy | 5 | 9% |
Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
Other | 5 | 9% |
Unknown | 15 | 27% |