RESUMO
Objective@#To assess the effect of left atrial appendage (LAA) isolation on LAA emptying and left atrial (LA) function using cardiac MRI in patients who underwent successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective study included 84 patients (mean age, 59 ± 10 years; 67 males) who underwent cardiac MRI after successful catheter ablation of AF. According to the electrical activity of LAA after catheter ablation, patients showed either LAA isolation or LAA normal activity. The LAA emptying phase (LAA-EP, in the systolic phase [SP] or diastolic phase), LAA emptying flux (LAA-EF, mL/s), and LA ejection fraction (LAEF, %) were evaluated by cardiac MRI. @*Results@#Of the 84 patients, 61 (73%) and 23 (27%) patients showed LAA normal activity and LAA isolation, respectively.Incidence of LAA emptying in SP was significantly higher in LAA isolation (91% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) than in LAA normal activation. LAA-EF was significantly lower in LAA isolation (40.1 ± 16.2 mL/s vs. 80.2 ± 25.1 mL/s, pp < 0.001) than in LAA normal activity. Furthermore, LAEF was significantly lower in LAA isolation (23.7% ± 11.2% vs. 31.1% ± 16.6%, p = 0.04) than in LAA normal activity. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the LAA-EP was independent from LAEF (p = 0.01). @*Conclusion@#LAA emptying in SP may be a critical characteristic of LAA isolation, and it may adversely affect the LAEF after catheter ablation of AF.
RESUMO
Objective@#To assess the effect of left atrial appendage (LAA) isolation on LAA emptying and left atrial (LA) function using cardiac MRI in patients who underwent successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective study included 84 patients (mean age, 59 ± 10 years; 67 males) who underwent cardiac MRI after successful catheter ablation of AF. According to the electrical activity of LAA after catheter ablation, patients showed either LAA isolation or LAA normal activity. The LAA emptying phase (LAA-EP, in the systolic phase [SP] or diastolic phase), LAA emptying flux (LAA-EF, mL/s), and LA ejection fraction (LAEF, %) were evaluated by cardiac MRI. @*Results@#Of the 84 patients, 61 (73%) and 23 (27%) patients showed LAA normal activity and LAA isolation, respectively.Incidence of LAA emptying in SP was significantly higher in LAA isolation (91% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) than in LAA normal activation. LAA-EF was significantly lower in LAA isolation (40.1 ± 16.2 mL/s vs. 80.2 ± 25.1 mL/s, pp < 0.001) than in LAA normal activity. Furthermore, LAEF was significantly lower in LAA isolation (23.7% ± 11.2% vs. 31.1% ± 16.6%, p = 0.04) than in LAA normal activity. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the LAA-EP was independent from LAEF (p = 0.01). @*Conclusion@#LAA emptying in SP may be a critical characteristic of LAA isolation, and it may adversely affect the LAEF after catheter ablation of AF.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To simulate the B₁-inhomogeneity-induced variation of pharmacokinetic parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: B₁-inhomogeneity-induced flip angle (FA) variation was estimated in a phantom study. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to assess the FA-deviation-induced measurement error of the pre-contrast R₁, contrast-enhancement ratio, Gd-concentration, and two-compartment pharmacokinetic parameters (K(trans), v(e), and v(p)). RESULTS: B₁-inhomogeneity resulted in −23–5% fluctuations (95% confidence interval [CI] of % error) of FA. The 95% CIs of FA-dependent % errors in the gray matter and blood were as follows: −16.7–61.8% and −16.7–61.8% for the pre-contrast R₁, −1.0–0.3% and −5.2–1.3% for the contrast-enhancement ratio, and −14.2–58.1% and −14.1–57.8% for the Gd-concentration, respectively. These resulted in −43.1–48.4% error for K(trans), −32.3–48.6% error for the v(e), and −43.2–48.6% error for v(p). The pre-contrast R₁ was more vulnerable to FA error than the contrast-enhancement ratio, and was therefore a significant cause of the Gd-concentration error. For example, a −10% FA error led to a 23.6% deviation in the pre-contrast R₁, −0.4% in the contrast-enhancement ratio, and 23.6% in the Gd-concentration. In a simulated condition with a 3% FA error in a target lesion and a −10% FA error in a feeding vessel, the % errors of the pharmacokinetic parameters were −23.7% for K(trans), −23.7% for v(e), and −23.7% for v(p). CONCLUSION: Even a small degree of B₁-inhomogeneity can cause a significant error in the measurement of pharmacokinetic parameters on DCE-MRI, while the vulnerability of the pre-contrast R₁ calculations to FA deviations is a significant cause of the miscalculation.