Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Nov 2020)

Is a timely assessment of the hematocrit necessary for cardiovascular magnetic resonance–derived extracellular volume measurements?

  • Mao-Yuan Su,
  • Yu-Sen Huang,
  • Emi Niisato,
  • Kelvin Chow,
  • Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang,
  • Cho-Kai Wu,
  • Hsi-Yu Yu,
  • Lian-Yu Lin,
  • Shun-Chung Yang,
  • Yeun-Chung Chang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00689-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)–derived extracellular volume (ECV) requires a hematocrit (Hct) to correct contrast volume distributions in blood. However, the timely assessment of Hct can be challenging and has limited the routine clinical application of ECV. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether ECV measurements lead to significant error if a venous Hct was unavailable on the day of CMR. Methods 109 patients with CMR T1 mapping and two venous Hcts (Hct0: a Hct from the day of CMR, and Hct1: a Hct from a different day) were retrospectively identified. A synthetic Hct (Hctsyn) derived from native blood T1 was also assessed. The study used two different ECV methods, (1) a conventional method in which ECV was estimated from native and postcontrast T1 maps using a region-based method, and (2) an inline method in which ECV was directly measured from inline ECV mapping. ECVs measured with Hct0, Hct1, and Hctsyn were compared for each method, and the reference ECV (ECV0) was defined using the Hct0. The error between synthetic (ECVsyn) and ECV0was analyzed for the two ECV methods. Results ECV measured using Hct1 and Hctsyn were significantly correlated with ECV0 for each method. No significant differences were observed between ECV0 and ECV measured with Hct1 (ECV1; 28.4 ± 6.6% vs. 28.3 ± 6.1%, p = 0.789) and between ECV0 and ECV calculated with Hctsyn (ECVsyn; 28.4 ± 6.6% vs. 28.2 ± 6.2%, p = 0.45) using the conventional method. Similarly, ECV0 was not significantly different from ECV1 (28.5 ± 6.7% vs. 28.5 ± 6.2, p = 0.801) and ECVsyn (28.5 ± 6.7% vs. 28.4 ± 6.0, p = 0.974) using inline method. ECVsyn values revealed relatively large discrepancies in patients with lower Hcts compared with those with higher Hcts. Conclusions Venous Hcts measured on a different day from that of the CMR examination can still be used to measure ECV. ECVsyn can provide an alternative method to quantify ECV without needing a blood sample, but significant ECV errors occur in patients with severe anemia.

Keywords