METHODS: Twenty seven HFpEF (clinical features of HF, left ventricular EF >50%, evidence of mild diastolic dysfunction and evidence of exercise limitation as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise test) and 14 controls underwent 1H-cardiovascular magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-CMRS) to measure MTG (lipid/water, %), 31P-CMRS to measure myocardial energetics (phosphocreatine-to-adenosine triphosphate - PCr/ATP) and feature-tracking cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for diastolic strain rate.
RESULTS: When compared to controls, HFpEF had 2.3 fold higher in MTG (1.45 ± 0.25% vs. 0.64 ± 0.16%, p = 0.009) and reduced PCr/ATP (1.60 ± 0.09 vs. 2.00 ± 0.10, p = 0.005). HFpEF had significantly reduced diastolic strain rate and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max), which both correlated significantly with elevated MTG and reduced PCr/ATP. On multivariate analyses, MTG was independently associated with diastolic strain rate while diastolic strain rate was independently associated with VO2 max.
CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial steatosis is pronounced in mild HFpEF, and is independently associated with impaired diastolic strain rate which is itself related to exercise capacity. Steatosis may adversely affect exercise capacity by indirect effect occurring via impairment in diastolic function. As such, myocardial triglyceride may become a potential therapeutic target to treat the increasing number of patients with HFpEF.
METHODS: We searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and PubMed for cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year-saved studies of CMR to detect significant CAD. We also developed a linear regression meta-model (CMR Cost-Effectiveness Calculator) based on a larger CMR cost-effectiveness simulation model that can approximate CMR lifetime discount cost, QALY, and cost effectiveness compared to relevant comparators [such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)] or invasive coronary angiography.
RESULTS: CMR was cost-effective for evaluation of significant CAD (either health-improving and cost saving or having a cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year result lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold) versus its relevant comparator in 10 out of 15 studies, with 3 studies reporting uncertain cost effectiveness, and 2 studies showing CCTA was optimal. Our cost-effectiveness calculator showed that CCTA was not cost-effective in the US compared to CMR when the most recent publications on imaging performance were included in the model.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current world-wide evidence in the literature, CMR usually represents a cost-effective option compared to relevant comparators to assess for significant CAD.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with established CKD and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)