ABC | Volume 114, Nº2, February 2020

Original Article Ribeiro et al. Simplified method to assess diastolic function by CMR Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(2):284-292 Figure 5 – Interobserver comparison of maximum displacement measures in normal controls (A) and patients with aortic valve disease (AVD) (B). A B MEAN MEAN DIFERENCE DIFERENCE bias bias 15 10 5 –5 –10 –15 0 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 4 2 –2 –4 –6 –8 –10 0 80 90 100 110 120 105 115 85 95 Table 4 – Atrioventriculr junction motion variables of patients with predominant aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation Stenosis Regurgitation p MD (cm) –0.130 ± 0.036 –0.093 ± 0.018 0.0026 MVED(s -1 ) 0,790 ± 0.479 0.470 ± 0.200 0.0312 VDS(s -1 ) 0.317± 0.262 0.097 ± 0.093 0.0075 VDS/MVED 0.440 ± 0.295 0.231 ± 0.252 0.0703 AVJ: atrioventricular junction; MD: maximum displacement; MVED: maximum velocity early diastole; VDS: velocity diastasis. Table 5 – Univariate and multiple linear regression analysis (p-values) for the prediction of the diastolic function parameters derived from linear measurements MD MVED VDS VDS/MVED Univariate Multiple Linear Regression Univariate Multiple Linear Regression Univariate Multiple Linear Regression Univariate Multiple Linear Regression Age 0.087 0.059 0.912 0.130 Gender 0.070 0.272 0.819 0.04 0.705 LV mass < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 0.003 LVEDV < 0.001 < 0.001 0.366 0.154 LVESV < 0.001 < 0.001 0.605 0.083 LVEF 0.002 < 0.001 0.610 0.004 0.006 HR 0.886 0.645 < 0.001 0.081 0.025 SBP 0.140 0.028 0.399 0.051 DBP 0.190 0.616 0.846 0.232 MD: maximum displacement; MVED: maximum velocity early diastole; VDS: velocity diastasis; LV: left ventricle; LVEDV: end-diastolic volume; LVESV: end-systolic volume; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; HR: heart rate; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure. displacement and the velocity of this displacement might suffer influence from LV geometric morphology. However, the LV dimensions measured as LV end-diastolic volume and diameter did not have significant effect on diastolic parameters. Additionally, LV longitudinal displacements are, by definition, normalized by the LV longitudinal dimension, and the other dimensions are incorporated to volume measurements. Despite the practical advantages of using this new method for LV diastolic function evaluation, it would be important, in future studies, to evaluate its accuracy compared to other existing methods in general evaluation of cardiac diseases that cause LV diastolic dysfunction, verifying the sensitivity and specificity in classifying different diastolic dysfunction degrees. Another limitation of the present study was the relatively small number of AVD patients. Finally, we have demonstrated that diastolic function evaluation can be performed by the SSFP cine sequences routinely acquired by conventional CMR tests, with no 290