#154 2023年心脏CT的最新进展Radiology综述解读:心肌应变科研

由于工作原因,需要做一份关于心脏的科研PPT,

正好发现了一篇2023年发表在Radiology上的文章

alt

书接上回

我们今天来接着看第五部分:心肌应变分析(Cardiac CT Myocardial Strain)的科研部分。

基于CT的心肌应变分析工具

心肌应变(Myocardial Strain)描述了心肌在整个心动周期中的形变,被认为是心功能的敏感标记物。

心肌应变包括几个要素,包括圆周(Circumferential Strain,CS)、纵向(Longitudinal Strain,LS)、径向(Radial Strain,RS)以及扭转(Torsion)分量。

与左心室射血分数(left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF)等心功能的标准测量方法相比,使用心肌应变分析评估心肌功能障碍可增加额外的诊断和预后信息。

在评估心肌收缩力和检测左心室射血分数(left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF)下降前的早期局部收缩功能障碍方面,普遍认为心肌应变参数优于LVEF。

过去几十年来,测量心肌应变的工具不断发展:

心肌应变测量始于 20 世纪 90 年代末的组织多普勒超声心动图(Tissue Doppler echocardiography)。

随后,优于组织多普勒方法的斑点追踪算法(speckle-tracking)问世,目前斑点追踪超声心动图(speckle tracking echocardiography,STE )是最广泛的量化心肌应变的技术

超声心动图中的应变测量存在几个问题:

  • 依赖于检查者
  • 不易重复
  • 依赖于良好的图像质量

磁共振成像(magnetic resonance imaging,MRI)是另一种可以测量心肌应变的成像方式。

磁共振特征追踪(cMR feature tracking,cMR-FT) 是一种相对较新的二维成像技术,可应用于标准 cMR电影SSFP 序列,无需专门的采集和复杂的后处理即可测量心肌变形,因而广受欢迎。

cMR-FT算法类似于斑点追踪算法,可追踪心肌的小 “特征”,如小体素模式,以测量心肌在整个心动周期中的变形。

不断发展的心脏CT特征跟踪软件提供了类似的心肌应变评估。

科研试用软件

Lotus经过调研发现目前最为常用的软件为来自Medviso公司的Segment CT软件,该软件提供免费试用版,感兴趣的老师可以在以下链接申请一下:

https://medviso.com/ct/

alt

点击一下这个GET YOUR FREE TRAIL HERE,进来的页面填写一下自己的信息。

填写完毕后可以自动开始下载。

友情提示一下, 安装这个软件需要windows电脑,且安装MATLAB R2019a

【没有MATLAB的朋友可以在某橙色软件上搜索对应的版本号,10💰左右能搞定】

Segment CT安装手册在这里:

https://medviso.com/documents/segment/installationmanual.pdf

友情提示,MRA也可以算。

Segment CT应变分析功能

alt

应变分析模块既可对长轴和短轴图像进行分析,并提供以下测量参数:

  • 平均应变(Mean strain)
  • 心尖和基底切片的旋转(Rotation in apical and basal slice)【对于multi-slice图像可以计算】
  • 扭转(Torsion)
  • 节段旋转(Segmental rotation)
  • 内侧外侧旋转(Endo Epi Rotation)

以及提供以下测量值的牛眼图:

  • 峰值圆周应变 (%)(Peak circumferential strain)
  • 峰值径向应变 (%)(Peak radial strain)
  • 舒张末期的圆周应变 (%)(Circumferential strain in ES)
  • 舒张末期的径向应变 (%)(Radial strain ES)
  • 舒张末期的标记处的圆周应变率(%/s)(Circumferential strain rate at ES marker)

Segment CT的用户手册在这里:

https://medviso.com/documents/segment/manual.pdf

应力分析在P115页。

Segment CT的工作原理

Segment CT算法的核心算法为特征跟踪(feature tracking,FE)算法。

FE算法使用基于弹性图像配准的跟踪策略计算帧间变形图来估算心肌应变。

基于CT的FE算法的工作原理和基于MRI的FE算法基本一致,详见#151 的心肌应变的计算流程一节。

应用于CT的FE算法跟踪心脏特征,如心内膜边界、乳头肌或小梁,并跟踪它们在心动周期中的移动,以计算出三个不同方向(纵向、径向和周向)的应变。

Segment CT的应变评估在三个短轴切片(基底、中室和心尖)以及两腔、三腔和四腔长轴切面上进行。

所有这些切面都是标准化的,因此可以比较心脏 CT 和超声心动图的应变参数。

为了进行节段分析,根据美国心脏协会的模型将心肌分为16-17个节段。

Segment CT会报告每个节段的应变值。

然后利用所有节段的这些值计算纵向、径向和圆周的总体峰值应变。

全局应变代表每个节段在相应方向上的所有峰值应变的平均值。

使用 SegmentCT测量应变如下图所示:

alt

图A和B为左心室四腔切面的应变测量示例,以及相应的径向和纵向应变曲线。

图C和图D为左心室短轴切面的应变测量示例,以及相应的径向和圆周应变曲线。

基于CT的心肌应变科研

最近的工作已经根据标记心脏核磁共振图像(cMR tagging)、斑点追踪超声心动图(speckle tracking echocardiography,STE )和最近的心脏核磁共振特征跟踪(cMR feature tracking,cMR-FT)的参考标准验证了心脏CT特征跟踪(CT feature tracking,CT-FT)算法。

并探讨了基于CT的心肌应变在冠脉狭窄和瓣膜置换术的价值。

CT左心室全局纵向心肌应变准确性研究

心肌应变测量心动周期中的心肌变形,包括周向、纵向和径向扭转成分。

目前研究比较充分的应变为左心室的纵向应变。

多项研究表明基于CT的左心室纵向应变和由斑点追踪超声心动图(speckle tracking echocardiography,STE )具有较高的一致性水平。

下图片显示了一名左心室应变正常(患者 1)和高度受损(患者 2)的患者在斑点追踪超声心动图(speckle tracking echocardiography,STE )(左)和4D CCTA(右)上的整体纵向应变(global longitudinal strain,GLS)。

alt

深色和亮色分别代表低度和高度变形。心动周期的应变时间曲线图显示在相应图像下方。与STE,CT-FT在重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者的周向和径向应变方面显示出更好的读者间读者内重现性。

在214名TAVI患者上的左心室整体纵向应变(left ventricular global longitudinal strain,LVGLS)的基于STE和多层CT上的CT-FT的心脏应变一致性研究中,研究结果表明(Ref 82):

  • STE的平均LVGLS 为 -13.91 ± 4.32%,而CT-FT的平均 LVGLS 为 -12.46 ± 3.97%。
  • CT-FT的平均LVGLS 与STE的平均LVGLS之间的测量值相关性显示出很强的相关性(r = 0.791,p < 0.001)。
  • 与STE相比,CT-FT的应变分析低估了LVGLS,平均差异为 1.44%(95% 一致范围 -3.85% - 6.73%)。
alt

TAVI术后严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者上的研究表明(Ref 83),CT 和 STE 在左心室全局纵向应变上(LVGLS) 表现出强烈的一致性

CCTA 和 3TCMR 的心衰患者的对照研究结果表明,

CCTA 导出的 三维左心室全局纵向(3D-GLS) 和左心室射血分数(LVEF)与cMR得到的测量结果不呈现明显的统计学差异 (Ref 84),

CCTA 导出的 3D-GLS 和 CMR 3D-GLS 之间的偏差仅有0.3%。

以上研究表明,多层CT上的CT-FT的左心室全局纵向应变LVGLS 具有较高准确性。

正常人LV-MPS研究

心脏 MRI 的心肌 MPS 可提供左心室收缩最大三维拉伸幅度的信息,在评估复杂的心脏运动方面具有很大优势。

然而,CT 导出 LV-MPS 的正常参考值并不十分清楚。

在31 名经超声心动图评估左心室射血分数≥ 55% 且无冠状动脉狭窄的接受回顾性心电图门控CCTA的左心室功能正常受试者中的研究表明:

  • 3D左心室最大主应变(left ventricular 3D maximum principal strain,LV-MPS)峰值的观察者内和观察者间 ICCs(95% 置信区间)分别为 0.96(0.94-0.97)和 0.94(0.92-0.96)。
  • 全局 LV-MPS 峰值(中位数,四分位数间距)为 0.59(0.55-0.72)。
  • 区域 LV-MPS 依次为基底(0.54, 0.49-0.59)、左心室中部(0.57, 0.53-0.65)和心尖(0.68, 0.60-0.84)明显升高,侧壁(0.66, 0.60-0.77)明显升高,而室间隔(0.47, 0.44-0.54)在四个左心室区域中最低。
  • 不同心肌水平和区域的达峰时间 (time to peak,TTP【Lotus:TTP为灌注参数】)无明显差异。
alt

因此,在左心室功能正常的受试者中,CT 导出的 LV-MPS 具有可重复性,并能定量表示具有异质性值的同步心肌收缩。

Lotus:关于同步心肌收缩的讲解详见《左心和右心是同步的吗?》

虽然健康受试者间的CT 导出的左心室最大主应变峰值LV-MPS具有较强的异质性值,但是普遍的规律是,LV-MPS在心尖和侧壁较高,在室间隔较低。

Lotus:把心脏想成房子的话,外墙的LV-MPS比较大,隔墙的比较小。

CAD-RADS分级

CT特征跟踪(CT-FT)算法评估心脏应变已成为评估心脏功能的重要方法。

阻塞性冠状动脉狭窄患者的心腔容积和LVEF可能正常,

因此CT心肌应变可能是评估冠状动脉病变功能重要性的一个有价值的补充。

使用 CT-FT 评估108例参与者(32例健康对照组和76例左前降支冠状动脉LAD狭窄患者)的区域左心室纵向应变(LS)的研究表明(Ref 86):

  • 与对照组相比,LAD狭窄I-IV 组左心室纵向应变(LS)明显降低(分别为-20.8%【I组:狭窄≤25%】、-18.6%【II组:狭窄26-49%】、-18.6%【III组:狭窄50-74%】和-17.0% 【IV组:狭窄≥75%】vs -23.7%【健康对照组】)
  • 与对照组、I 组和 II 组相比,III 组和 IV 组 LAD 基底圆周应变(CS)明显降低(分别为 - 22.4% 【III组:狭窄50-74%】和 - 22.1% 【IV组:狭窄≥75%】vs - 25.4%【健康对照组】、 - 25.3%【I组:狭窄≤25%】和- 24.1% 【II组:狭窄26-49%】)
  • 与非 LAD 区域相比,II-IV 组 LAD 区域的 LS 显著增加(分别为 - 18.6% vs - 21.9%,p = 0.07【II组:狭窄26-49%】;- 18.6% vs - 21.9%,p = 0.024【III组:狭窄50-74%】;- 17.5% vs - 20%,p = 0.032【IV组:狭窄≥75%】)
  • LAD 狭窄的严重程度与 LAD 区域的 LS 呈正相关(r = 0.438,p = 0.002)

因此,LAD区域的左心室收缩变形随着LAD狭窄严重程度的增加而减小。

另一项基于不同冠状动脉疾病报告和数据系统(CAD-RADS)级别患者的CT-FT评估的左心室全局心肌应变研究表明(Ref 87):

  • 随着CAD-RADS级别的升高,基于CT的左心室全局圆周应变(GCS)、全局纵向应变(GLS)和全局径向应变(GRS)逐渐降低。
  • 全局心肌应变与钙化积分CAC 之间存在明显相关性(GRS:r = - 0.219,GCS:r = 0.189,GLS:r = 0.491;P < 0.05)
  • 阻塞性 CAD 的独立预测因素是年龄(β = 0.065,比值比 [OR] = 1.067,P = 0.005)、左室射血分数LVEF(β = 0.145,OR = 1.156,P = 0.047)和全局纵向应变GLS(β = 0.232,OR = 1.261,P = 0.01)

因此,CT 导出的左心室全局纵向应变(LVGLS) 与 CAD-RADS 水平和钙化积分CAC相关。

左心室全局纵向应变(LVGLS) 比钙化积分CAC更能反映冠心病的严重程度。

初步的研究表明,

CT应变与冠状动脉狭窄严重程度相关,左心室全局纵向应变值(LVGLS)随狭窄严重程度增加而降低

主动脉瓣狭窄

主动脉瓣狭窄(Aortic stenosis,AS)会对心肌造成压力超负荷,导致心室损伤。

alt

在这种情况下,为了恢复室壁应力和维持心输出量,心肌最初会出现左心室代偿性肥厚,即质量过大、相对室壁厚度增加和同心性肥厚。

左心室肥厚导致顺应性受损和舒张末压升高。

如果主动脉瓣狭窄不及时治疗,左心室间隙会扩大,出现弥漫性心肌纤维化,随后出现置换性纤维化和心肌细胞死亡。

置换性纤维化和心肌细胞死亡的出现标志着不可逆转的心肌损伤和向失代偿期过渡的转折点,即左心室收缩特性的宏观损害。

下图展示了症状的演变、心室重塑的相应进展以及目前主要成像生物标志物的表达:

alt

其中LVEF为左心室射血分数,LVGLS为左心室全局纵向应变。

Lotus:图中所写过多,非医学背景翻译有限,原图如下:

alt

CT在主动脉瓣狭窄患者的诊疗中发挥着重要作用。

多层CT(multi-detector CT,MDCT) 是一种心脏成像模式,能以最佳的空间分辨率提供心脏的三维数据,

并能对每个心腔进行容积量化,计算 左心室射血分数LVEF 和右心室射血分数RVEF。

如何使用CT进行射血分数的分析:

完全根据 TAVR 术前 MDCT 扫描获得的心腔容积量化、左心室肥厚和二尖瓣环钙化分级,可将患者分为五个不同的疾病进展阶段。

  • 0期:无心肌损伤
  • 1期:左心室损伤;左心室射血分数LVEF < 50% 或左心室质量指数男性 > 79.2g/m2 ,女性 >63. 8g/m2。
  • 2期:左心房或二尖瓣损伤;左心房容积指数 > 56 mL/m2,心房颤动或二尖瓣环严重钙化
  • 3期:右心房损伤;右心房容积指数 > 70 mL/m2
  • 4期:右心室损伤;右心室射血分数 < 35%

基于MDCT的TAVR评估系统可对严重 AS 进行精细的风险分层,

3 期和 4 期与较高的全因死亡率独立相关,

结果与基于超声心动图的分期系统得出的结果相似(Ref 87)。

除了通过左心室射血分数和右心室射血分数评估心脏功能的容积评估外,还出现了一种新的基于MDCT的动态特征追踪软件以评估心肌应变。

基于CT的心肌应变是主动脉瓣狭窄的重要预后工具。

针对主动脉瓣狭窄患者通过MDCT和cMR得出的左心室全局纵向应变(LVGLS)的预后作用的研究如下表所示:

作者技术方式病人数患者人群LVGLS截断值(-%)研究发现Ref
Fukui2020MDCT223严重的主动脉狭窄进行TAVR20.5LVGLS < -20.5% 与较高的全因死亡率和综合结果风险有关88
Gegenava2020MDCT214严重的主动脉狭窄进行TAVR14随访 48 个月后,LVGLS ≤ -14% 的全因死亡率为 15%,而 LVGLS > -14% 的全因死亡率为 28%89
Fukui2022MDCT431严重的主动脉狭窄进行TAVR18.2与 LVGLS ≤ -18.2% 相比,LVGLS > -18.2% 的复合结果风险更高(HR,1.77;95% CI,1.18-2.66;P = 0.006)。90
Kim2020cMR123无症状的中等程度到严重的主动脉狭窄且具有保留的左心室射血分数LVEF值17.9与 LVGLS < -17.9% 相比,LVGLS > -17.9% 的无事件生存率更低91
Fukui2022cMR147低梯度中等至严重的主动脉狭窄12.4LVGLS < -12.4% 与较高的全因死亡率和综合结果风险有关92

接受TAVR的患者基线CT应变降低与TAVR后死亡和因心力衰竭住院的风险较高相关。

在 TAVR 前的评估中,MDCT 导出的 LVGLS 已成为全因死亡率的独立相关因素(Ref89,90),并提出了-14% 的临界值来确定最坏的结果(Ref 90)。

在一个由 432 名接受 TAVR 的无症状重度 AS 患者组成的大型队列中,不仅术前 MDCT 导出的 LVGLS 是预后的独立预测因子,

而且 TAVR 术后一个月 LVGLS 有所改善的受试者显示出良好的临床预后(Ref 91)。

因此,在TAVR术前MDCT方案评估中测量LVGLS是有益的,因为它能提供有关TAVR术后预后的宝贵信息。

尽管研究主要评估左心室应变,但对评估左心房应变的兴趣也越来越大。

左心房应变已被证明是几种心血管疾病(包括心力衰竭、房颤、中风和心脏瓣膜病)中标准心房功能的独立预后标志物。

左房劳损可以通过心脏CT进行评估,早期研究已经显示了心脏CT左心房应变测量的可行性和预后价值。

具体来说,主动脉瓣狭窄通过增加左心室充盈压诱发左心房重塑

LA 纵向应变峰值(PALS)反映了 LA 储能功能,被认为是 AS 患者的预后指标。

LA-PALS与接受经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的重度 AS 患者生存率之间的关系研究根据 PALS 四分位数将一共376名患者分为四组:

  • PALS > 19.3%(Q1,储库功能最高)
  • PALS在15.0%-19.3%(Q2)
  • PALS在9.1%-14.9%(Q3)
  • PALS≤9.0%(Q4,储库功能最低)

研究结果表明(Ref 93):

  • PALS 与全因死亡率独立相关[危险比 (HR):1.044,95% 置信区间 (CI):1.012-1.076,P = 0.006]
  • 与 Q1 患者相比, Q3 和 Q4 患者在 TAVI 术后的死亡风险更高[HR:2.262(95% 置信区间:1.335-3.832),Q3 患者的 P = 0.002;HR:3.116(95% 置信区间:1.864-5.210),Q4 患者的 P <0.001]。

因此,除了左心室全局纵向应变(LVGLS)外,基于MDCT得到的左心房纵向应变峰值(LA-PALS)是 TAVI 术后全因死亡率的潜在预后指标。

以上研究表明,

接受TAVR的患者基线CT应变绝对数值的降低与TAVR后死亡和因心力衰竭住院的风险较高相关。

此外,CT应变较基线无改善与治疗阴性结局增加相关。

二尖瓣/三尖瓣

心肌ECV和心肌应变的这些新的心脏CT应用也可应用于经导管二尖瓣置换术(Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement,TMVR)和经导管小叶修复系统治疗症状性三尖瓣关闭(Transcatheter Leaflet Repair System for Symptomatic Tricuspid Regurgitation)术前的右心室分析。

36名发生继发性二尖瓣返流的患者研究表明(Ref 94),

通过对比基线CCTA和TMVR术后1个月的CCTA随访,大多数患者(36 例患者中的 30 例 [83%])都发生了有利的左心室舒张末期容积反向重塑,

具体表现为:

  • 左心室舒张末期容积增加(281 mL [IQR: 210 至 317 mL] vs. 239 mL [IQR: 195 至 291 mL];P < 0.001)
  • 左心室射血分数增加(37% [IQR: 31% 至 48%] vs. 30% [IQR: 23% 至 40%];P < 0.001)
  • 左心室质量增加(126 克 [IQR: 96 至 155 g] vs. 116 克 [IQR: 92% 至 95%] ;P < 0.001)
  • 左心室容积增加(281 mL [IQR: 210 至 317 mL] vs. 239 mL [IQR: 195 至 291 mL];P < 0.001)
  • 左心房容积增加(171 mL [IQR: 133 至 216 mL] vs. 159 mL [IQR: 125 至 201 mL];P = 0.027)
  • 左心房整体纵向应变值减小(-11% [IQR: -17% 至 -8%] vs. -9% [IQR: -12% 至 -6%];P<0.001)

因此,CCTA可确定 TMVR 术后的良好变化。

CT应变分析的局限性

目前,CT应变分析并非没有其局限性。

一致性差异

采用 STE 和 CCT 特征追踪法(Ref 83)的研究中发现左心室径向应变、右心室纵向应变和游离壁纵向应变存在较差的一致性

具体来说,

在106例的TAVI术后严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者上的采用 STE 和 CCT 特征追踪法测定左心室(LV)、右心室(RV)、左心房(LA)射出分率、尺寸、总纵向(GLS)、周向(GCS)和径向应变(GRS)一致性研究表明:

  • 在 CT 中,应变测量在 LV,RV 和 LA 中表现出良好到极好的重复性(读者内和读者间组内相关系数≥0.75)。
  • 在 STE 中,只有 LVGLS 和 LAGLS 具有良好的重复性,而 LVGCS 和 LVGRS 表现为中度,RVGLS 和游离壁纵向应变(FWLS)的重复性差。
  • CT 和 STE 仅在LVGLS 表现出强烈的一致性,而其他应变特征显示中度(LVGCS,LAGLS)或弱(LVGRS,RVGLS 和 FWLS)的模态间相关性。
alt

亚分组上的不同心肌应变参数的差异如下图所示:

alt

在以cMR作为参照的基于CT的心肌应变的准确性研究方面。

CCTA和3T-MRI之间的径向和周向应变存在统计学差异(Ref 84)。

44例24小时内接受心电门控 CCTA 和 3TCMR 的不同程度心衰患者上的自身对照研究结果表明(Ref 84):

  • 与 CMR 相比,CCTA 导出的 3D-GLS 和 LVEF 无明显差异。
  • Bland-Altman 分析表示,CCTA 导出的 3D-GLS 和 CMR 3D-GLS 之间的偏差很小(0.3%)。
  • 在左心室全局应变方面,CCTA 和 CMR之间存在密切的相关性(3D-GRS,r = 0.89;3D-GCS,r = 0.86;3D-GLS,r = 0.79,均 p <0.001)。
  • 与 CMR 相比,CCTA 导出的 3D-GRS 和 3D-GCS 有统计学差异
  • CCTA 导出的3D全局应变的观察者内一致性良好(3D-GLS 的 ICC = 0.856,3D-GCS 的 ICC = 0.741,3D-GRS 的 ICC = 0.762)。

然而,我们需要注意到

与3T-cMR相比,CCTA 得到的全局纵向应变GLS一致性良好,可定量评估房颤患者的心肌力学变化。

时间分辨率的影响

最近的研究表明,R-R间期的CT重建增量是CT衍生应变数据变化的重要来源(Ref 85)。

回顾性81例心电门控CCTA的受试者上的研究,在整个心脏周期(0-100% R-R 间期)中分别以5% 和10% 的步骤重建 CCTA 图像。

计算并对比两组左室(LV)整体纵向应变(GLS)、圆周应变(GCS)、径向应变(GRS)、 左心房(LA)整体纵向应变(GLS)、射血分数(EF)和左房室耦合指数的结果表明:

  • R-R 间期的重建增量显著影响 CT-FT 衍生的应变值。R-R 增量5% 组的绝对应变值对比10%组显著增大。
  • 5% 和10% 两组间左室整体纵向应变 LVGRS 差异最大。
  • 在心率大于每分钟80次或心脏功能受损的亚组中,组间差异减弱,特别是 LVGLS,LVGRS 和 LAGLS。

因此,

R-R 间期重建增量是左室和左室 CT-FT 应变值变化的重要来源,尤其是在心率较低和心功能保持不变的情况下。

控制心率和应用窄的 R-R 重建增量(如5%)来量化左心室应变是非常必要的。

参考文献
  1. Dodd JD, Leipsic JA. Evolving Developments in Cardiac CT. Radiology. 2023;307(3):e222827. doi:10.1148/radiol.222827
  2. Writing Committee Members; Gulati M, Levy PD, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/ SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;78(22):2218–2261.
  3. Adamson PD, Williams MC, Dweck MR, et al. Guid- ing Therapy by Coronary CT Angiography Improves Outcomes in Patients With Stable Chest Pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74(16):2058–2070.
  4. DISCHARGE Trial Group; Maurovich-Horvat P, Bosserdt M, et al. CT or Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain. N Engl J Med 2022;386(17):1591–1602.
  5. Lee SE, Sung JM, Andreini D, et al. Differential association between the pro- gression of coronary artery calcium score and coronary plaque volume pro- gression according to statins: the Progression of AtheRosclerotic PlAque DetermIned by Computed TomoGraphic Angiography Imaging (PARADIGM) study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2019;20(11):1307–1314.
  6. Han D, Chen B, Gransar H, et al. Prognostic significance of plaque location in non-obstructive coronary artery disease: from the CONFIRM registry. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2022;23(9):1240–1247.
  7. Patel AR, Bamberg F, Branch K, et al. Society of cardiovascular computed tomography expert consensus document on myocardial computed tomography perfusion imaging. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2020;14(1):87–100.
  8. Blanke P, Weir-McCall JR, Achenbach S, et al. Computed tomography imag- ing in the context of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) / transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2019;13(1):1–20.
  9. Boogers MJ, Broersen A, van Velzen JE, de Graaf FR, El-Naggar HM, Kitslaar PH, et al. Automated quantification of coronary plaque with computed tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound using a dedicated registration algorithm for fusion-based quantification. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1007-1016
  10. de Graaf MA, Broersen A, Kitslaar PH, Roos CJ, Dijkstra J, Lelieveldt BP, et al. Automatic quantification and characterization of coronary atherosclerosis with computed tomography coronary angiography: cross-correlation with intravascular ultrasound virtual histology. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;29:1177-1190
  11. Fujimoto S, Kondo T, Kodama T, Fujisawa Y, Groarke J, Kumamaru KK, et al. A novel method for non-invasive plaque morphology analysis by coronary computed tomography angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;30:1373-1382
  12. Voros S, Rinehart S, Qian Z, Vazquez G, Anderson H, Murrieta L, et al. Prospective validation of standardized, 3-dimensional, quantitative coronary computed tomographic plaque measurements using radiofrequency backscatter intravascular ultrasound as reference standard in intermediate coronary arterial lesions: results from the ATLANTA (assessment of tissue characteristics, lesion morphology, and hemodynamics by angiography with fractional flow reserve, intravascular ultrasound and virtual histology, and noninvasive computed tomography in atherosclerotic plaques) I study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:198-208
  13. Choi AD, Marques H, Kumar V, Griffin WF, Rahban H, Karlsberg RP, et al. CT evaluation by artificial intelligence for atherosclerosis, stenosis and vascular morphology (CLARIFY): a multi-center, international study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2021;15:470-476
  14. Sheahan M, Ma X, Paik D, Obuchowski NA, St Pierre S, Newman WP 3rd, et al. Atherosclerotic plaque tissue: noninvasive quantitative assessment of characteristics with software-aided measurements from conventional CT angiography. Radiology 2018;286:622-631
  15. Dey D, Schepis T, Marwan M, Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Achenbach S. Automated three-dimensional quantification of noncalcified coronary plaque from coronary CT angiography: comparison with intravascular US. Radiology 2010;257:516-522
  16. Tzimas G, Gulsin GS, Everett RJ, Akodad M, Meier D, Sewnarain K, et al. Age- and sex-specific nomographic CT quantitative plaque data from a large international cohort. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2024;17:165-175
  17. Tzimas G. Nomographic CT quantitative plaque data from a large international population. Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, 2022. https://cdn.ymaws.com/scct.org/resource/resmgr/ scct_2022_printed_program_AB.pdf.
  18. Cury RC, Leipsic J, Abbara S, et al. CAD-RADSTM 2.0 - 2022 Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System: An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the North America Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2022;16(6):536–557.
  19. Curzen N, Nicholas Z, Stuart B, et al. Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(37):3844-3852. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab444IF: 37.6 Q1
  20. Nanna MG, Vemulapalli S, Fordyce CB, et al. The prospective randomized trial of the optimal evaluation of cardiac symptoms and revascularization: Rationale and design of the PRECISE trial. Am Heart J. 2022;245:136-148. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2021.12.004IF: 3.7 Q1
  21. Bech GJW, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation 2001; 103:2928–2934
  22. Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al.; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:213–224
  23. De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al.; FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:991–1001
  24. Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, Habets J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve met- analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:1–7.
  25. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multi-center DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58:1989–1997
  26. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 2012; 308:1237–1245
  27. Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al.; NXT Trial Study Group. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: next steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63:1145–1155
  28. Griffin WF, Choi AD, Riess JS, et al. AI Evaluation of Stenosis on Coronary CTA, Comparison With Quantitative Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve: A CREDENCE Trial Substudy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;16(2):193–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.10.020 .
  29. Madsen KT, Nørgaard BL, Øvrehus KA, et al. Prognostic Value of Coronary CT Angiography-derived Fractional Flow Reserve on 3-year Outcomes in Patients with Stable Angina. Radiology. 2023;308(3):e230524. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230524 .
  30. Cherukuri L, Birudaraju D, Kinninger A, et al. Use of Advanced CT Technology to Evaluate Left Atrial Indices in Patients with a High Heart Rate or with Heart Rate Variability: The Converge Registry. J Nucl Med Technol. 2021;49(1):65–69. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.120.253781 .
  31. Sand NPR, Veien KT, Nielsen SS, et al. Prospective comparison of FFR de- rived from coronary CT angiography with SPECT perfusion imaging in stable coronary artery disease: the ReASSESS study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018; 11:1640–1650
  32. Artzner C, Daubert M, Ehieli W, et al. Impact of computed tomography (CT)-derived fractional flow reserve on reader confidence for interpreta- tion of coronary CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 2018; 108:242–248
  33. Curzen NP, Nolan J, Zaman AG, Nørgaard BL, Rajani R. Does the routine availability of CT-derived FFR influence management of patients with stable chest pain compared to CT angiography alone? The CT-FFR RIPCORD study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 9:1188–1194
  34. Douglas PS, Pontone G, Hlatky MA, et al.; PLATFORM Investigators. Clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnostic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFR(CT)— outcome and resource impacts study. Eur Heart J 2015; 36:3359–3367
  35. Andreini D, Modolo R, Katagiri Y, et al.; SYNTAX III REVOLUTION Investiga- tors. Impact of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography on heart team treatment decision-making in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: insights from the SYNTAX III REVOLUTION trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12:e007607
  36. Dewey M, Siebes M, Kachelrieß M, et al. Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia. Nat Rev Cardiol 2020;17(7):427–450.
  37. Nous FMA, Geisler T, Kruk MBP, et al. Dynamic Myocardial Perfusion CT for the Detection of Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Artery Disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2022;15(1):75–87.
  38. Andreini D, Mushtaq S, Pontone G, et al. CT Perfusion Versus Coronary CT Angiography in Patients With Suspected In-Stent Restenosis or CAD Progres- sion. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13(3):732–742.
  39. Narula J, Chandrashekhar Y, Ahmadi A, et al. SCCT 2021 Expert Consensus Document on Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2021;15(3):192–217.
  40. 中华医学会放射学分会心胸学组, 国家心血管病专业质控中心心血管影像质控专家工作组 . 动态 CT 心肌灌注成像技术操作与图像分析中国专家共识[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2022, 56(12): 1289-1299. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20220308-00213 .
  41. Rudzinski PN, Leipsic JA, Schoepf UJ, et al. CT in Transcatheter-delivered Treatment of Valvular Heart Disease. Radiology. 2022;304(1):4-17. doi:10.1148/radiol.210567
  42. Fam NP, von Bardeleben RS, Hensey M, et al. Transfemoral Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement With the EVOQUE System: A Multicenter, Observational, First-in-Human Experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021;14(5):501–511.
  43. Reid A , Ben ZekryS , Turaga M, et al . Neo-LVOT and Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Expert Recommendations. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2021;14(4):854–866.
  44. Hensey M, Alenezi AR, Murdoch DJ, et al. Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve-in- Valve Replacement With Subsequent Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture to Opti- mize Hemodynamic Function. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11(21):2226– 2227.
  45. Nacif MS, Kawel N, Lee JJ et al (2012) Interstitial myocardial fibrosis assessed as extracellular volume fraction with low-radiation-dose cardiac CT. Radiology 264:876–883.
  46. Bandula S, White SK, Flett AS et al (2013) Measurement of myocardial extracellular volume fraction by using equilibrium contrast-enhanced CT: validation against histologic findings. Radiology 269:396–403.
  47. Hamdy A, Kitagawa K, Goto Y et al (2019) Comparison of the different imaging time points in delayed phase cardiac CT for myocardial scar assessment and extracellular volume fraction estimation in patients with old myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 35:917–926.
  48. Scully PR, Patel KP, Saberwal B et al (2020) Identifying cardiac amyloid in aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 13:2177–2189.
  49. Tamarappoo B, Han D, Tyler J et al (2020) Prognostic value of computed tomography–derived extracellular volume in tavr patients with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 13:2591–2601.
  50. Lee H-J, Im DJ, Youn J-C et al (2016) Myocardial extracellular volume fraction with dual-energy equilibrium contrast-enhanced cardiac CT in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: a prospective comparison with cardiac MR imaging. Radiology 280:49–57.
  51. Abadia AF, van Assen M, Martin SS et al (2020) Myocardial extracellular volume fraction to differentiate healthy from cardiomyopathic myocardium using dual-source dual-energy CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 14:162–167.
  52. Oda S, Emoto T, Nakaura T et al (2019) Myocardial late iodine enhancement and extracellular volume quantification with dual-layer spectral detector dual-energy cardiac CT. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 1:e180003.
  53. Ohta Y, Kishimoto J, Kitao S et al (2020) Investigation of myocardial extracellular volume fraction in heart failure patients using iodine map with rapid-kV switching dual-energy CT: segmental comparison with MRI T1 mapping. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 14:349–355.
  54. Dubourg B, Dacher J-N, Durand E et al (2021) Single-source dual energy CT to assess myocardial extracellular volume fraction in aortic stenosis before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Diagn Interv Imaging 102:561–570.
  55. Qi R-X, Jiang J-S, Shao J et al (2022) Measurement of myocardial extracellular volume fraction in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction using dual-energy computed tomography. Eur Radiol 32:4253–4263.
  56. Mergen V, Sartoretti T, Klotz E et al (2022) Extracellular volume quantification with cardiac late enhancement scanning using dual-source photon-counting detector CT. Invest Radiol 57:406–411.
  57. Deux JF, Nouri R, Tacher V, et al. Diagnostic Value of Extracellular Volume Quantification and Myocardial Perfusion Analysis at CT in Cardiac Amyloidosis. Radiology. 2021;300(2):326-335.
  58. Palmisano A, Vignale D, Tadic M, et al. Myocardial Late Contrast Enhancement CT in Troponin-Positive Acute Chest Pain Syndrome. Radiology. 2022;302(3):545-553.
  59. Kidoh, M., et al., Cardiac MRI-derived Extracellular Volume Fraction versus Myocardium-to-Lumen R1 Ratio at Postcontrast T1 Mapping for Detecting Cardiac Amyloidosis. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging, 2023. 5(2): p. e220327.
  60. Hammer Y, Talmor-Barkan Y, Abelow A, et al. Myocardial extracellular volume quantification by computed tomography predicts outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248306. Published 2021 Mar 10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248306
  61. van Assen M, De Cecco CN, Sahbaee P, et al. Feasibility of extracellular volume quantification using dual-energy CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2019;13(1):81-84. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2018.10.011
  62. Nacif M.S.,Liu Y.,Yao J. et al. 3D left ventricular extracellular volume fraction by low-radiation dose cardiac CT: assessment of interstitial myocardial fibrosis. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. 2013 Jan 1; 7: 51-57
  63. Yamasaki Y, Abe K, Kamitani T, et al. Right Ventricular Extracellular Volume with Dual-Layer Spectral Detector CT: Value in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension. Radiology. 2021;298(3):589-596. doi:10.1148/radiol.2020203719
  64. Kurita Y, Kitagawa K, Kurobe Y, et al. Estimation of myocardial extracellular volume fraction with cardiac CT in subjects without clinical coronary artery disease: A feasibility study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10(3):237-241. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2016.02.001
  65. Si-Mohamed SA, Restier LM, Branchu A, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Extracellular Volume Quantified by Dual-Layer Dual-Energy CT for Detection of Acute Myocarditis. J Clin Med 2021;10(15):3286.
  66. Han D, Tamarappoo B, Klein E, et al. Computed tomography angiographyderived extracellular volume fraction predicts early recovery of left ventricular systolic function after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2021;22(2):179–185.
  67. Suzuki M, Toba T, Izawa Y, et al. Prognostic Impact of Myocardial Extracellular Volume Fraction Assessment Using Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in Patients Treated With Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis. J Am Heart Assoc 2021;10(18):e020655.
  68. Hayashi H, Oda S, Emoto T, et al. Myocardial extracellular volume quantification by cardiac CT in pulmonary hypertension: Comparison with cardiac MRI. Eur J Radiol 2022;153:110386.
  69. Tu C, Shen H, Liu R, et al. Myocardial extracellular volume derived from contrastenhanced chest computed tomography for longitudinal evaluation of cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer treated with anthracyclines. Insights Imaging 2022;13(1):85.
  70. Yashima S, Takaoka H, Iwahana T, et al. Evaluation of extracellular volume by computed tomography is useful for prediction of prognosis in dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart Vessels 2022;38(2):185–194.
  71. Gama F, Rosmini S, Bandula S, et al. Extracellular Volume Fraction by Computed Tomography Predicts Long-Term Prognosis Among Patients With Cardiac Amyloidosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022;15(12):2082-2094. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.08.006
  72. Treibel TA, Bandula S, Fontana M, et al. Extracellular volume quantification by dynamic equilibrium cardiac computed tomography in cardiac amyloidosis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(6):585-592. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2015.07.001IF: 5.5 Q1
  73. Koike H, Cheng VY, Lesser A, et al. Importance of imaging-acquisition protocol and post-processing analysis for extracellular volume fraction assessment by computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2023;17(3):222-225.
  74. Vignale D, Palmisano A, Gnasso C, et al. Extracellular volume fraction (ECV) derived from pre-operative computed tomography predicts prognosis in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;24(7):887-896. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jead040
  75. Muthalaly RG, Tan S, Nelson AJ, et al. Variation of computed tomography-derived extracellular volume fraction and the impact of protocol parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. Published online June 14, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2024.06.002
  76. Esposito A, Palmisano A, Antunes S, et al. Assessment of Remote Myocardium Heterogeneity in Patients with Ventricular Tachycardia Using Texture Analysis of Late Iodine Enhancement (LIE) Cardiac Computed Tomography (cCT) Images. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018;20(5):816-825. doi:10.1007/s11307-018-1175-1
  77. Kim NY, Im DJ, Youn JC, et al. Synthetic Extracellular Volume Fraction Derived Using Virtual Unenhanced Attenuation of Blood on Contrast-Enhanced Cardiac Dual-Energy CT in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;218(3):454-461. doi:10.2214/AJR.21.26654
  78. Ishiyama M, Kurita T, Takafuji M, et al. The cardiac computed tomography-derived extracellular volume fraction predicts patient outcomes and left ventricular mass reductions after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis. J Cardiol. 2023;81(5):476-484. doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.12.002
  79. Palmisano A, Vignale D, Tadic M et al (2022) Myocardial late contrast enhancement CT in troponin-positive acute chest pain syndrome. Radiol-ogy 302:545–553. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1148/ radiol. 211288
  80. Rajiah PS, Kalisz K, Broncano J, et al. Myocardial Strain Evaluation with Cardiovascular MRI: Physics, Principles, and Clinical Applications. Radiographics. 2022;42(4):968-990. doi:10.1148/rg.210174 IF: 5.2 Q1
  81. Amzulescu MS, De Craene M, Langet H, et al. Myocardial strain imaging: review of general principles, validation, and sources of discrepancies. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20(6):605-619. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jez041 IF: 6.7 Q1
  82. Vach M, Vogelhuber J, Weber M, et al. Feasibility of CT-derived myocardial strain measurement in patients with advanced cardiac valve disease. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):8793. Published 2021 Apr 22. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88294-5
  83. Bernhard B, Grogg H, Zurkirchen J, et al. Reproducibility of 4D cardiac computed tomography feature tracking myocardial strain and comparison against speckle-tracking echocardiography in patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2022;16(4):309-318. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2022.01.003
  84. Wang R, Fang Z, Wang H, et al. Quantitative analysis of three-dimensional left ventricular global strain using coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with heart failure: Comparison with 3T cardiac MR. Eur J Radiol. 2021;135:109485. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109485
  85. Chen J, Tang M, Wang JQ, et al. Influence of temporal resolution on computed tomography feature-tracking strain measurements. Eur J Radiol. 2023;158:110644. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110644
  86. Han X, Cao Y, Ju Z, et al. Assessment of regional left ventricular myocardial strain in patients with left anterior descending coronary stenosis using computed tomography feature tracking. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020;20(1):362. Published 2020 Aug 8. doi:10.1186/s12872-020-01644-5
  87. Hirasawa, K.; vanRosendael, P.J.; Fortuni, F.; Singh, G.K.; Kuneman, J.H.; Vollema, E.M.; Ajmone Marsan, N.; Knuuti, J.; Bax, J.J.; Delgado, V. Prognostic implications of cardiac damage classification based on computed tomography in severe aortic stenosis. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 23, 578–585.
  88. Fukui, M.; Xu, J.; Thoma, F.; Sultan, I.; Mulukutla, S.; Elzomor, H.; Lee, J.S.; Gleason, T.G.; Cavalcante, J.L. Baseline global longitudinal strain by computed tomography is associated with post transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2020, 14, 233–239. [CrossRef]
  89. Gegenava, T.; van der Bijl, P.; Vollema, E.M.; van der Kley, F.; de Weger, A.; Hautemann, D.; Reiber, J.H.C.; Ajmone Marsan, N.; Bax, J.J.; Delgado, V. Prognostic Influence of Feature Tracking Multidetector Row Computed Tomography-Derived Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients with Aortic Stenosis Treated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2020, 125, 948–955. [CrossRef]
  90. Fukui, M.; Hashimoto, G.; Lopes, B.B.C.; Stanberry, L.I.; Garcia, S.; Gössl, M.; Enriquez-Sarano, M.; Bapat, V.N.; Sorajja, P.; Lesser, J.R.; et al. Association of baseline and change in global longitudinal strain by computed tomography with post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 23, 476–484. [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, M.Y.; Park, E.A.; Lee, W.; Lee, S.P. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking in Aortic Stenosis: Exploration of Strain Parameters and Prognostic Value in Asymptomatic Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction. Korean J. Radiol. 2020, 21, 268–279. [CrossRef]
  92. Fukui, M.; Annabi, M.S.; Rosa, V.E.E.; Ribeiro, H.B.; Stanberry, L.I.; Clavel, M.A.; Rodés-Cabau, J.; Tarasoutchi, F.; Schelbert, E.B.; Bergler-Klein, J.; et al. Comprehensive myocardial characterization using cardiac magnetic resonance associates with outcomes in low gradient severe aortic stenosis. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 24, 46–58. [CrossRef]
  93. Hirasawa K, Singh GK, Kuneman JH, et al. Feature-tracking computed tomography left atrial strain and long-term survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;24(3):327-335. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jeac157
  94. Fukui M, Sorajja P, Gössl M, et al. Left Ventricular Remodeling After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With Tendyne: New Insights From Computed Tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(17):2038-2048. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2020.06.009
  95. Wild MG, Löw K, Rosch S, et al. Multicenter Experience With the Transcatheter Leaflet Repair System for Symptomatic Tricuspid Regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(13):1352-1363. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2022.05.041

本文由 mdnice 多平台发布

评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值