In Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (NICMP), the Presence of LV Scar Detected by Delayed Enhancement-CMR Is a Stronger Predictor of Cardiovascular Events Than Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF)

Purpose of the study. Analyze the parameters of the interaction between the left ventricle and the arterial system in patients with chronic forms of coronary heart disease and to identify relationships with levels of proadrenomedullin (MR‑proADM) and N‑terminal precursor of the brain natriuretic peptide B (NT‑proBNP).Materials and methods.240 patients with chronic forms of coronary heart disease (median – 55,9 [43; 63] years) and Q‑forming myocardial infarction in the past were examined. Of these, 110 patients with myocardial infarction and preserved lef ventricular ejection fraction and 130 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. All patients were calculated parameters of lef ventricular‑arterial interaction and the determination in blood serum levels of MR‑proADM and NT‑proBNP.Results.In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, an increase in the lef ventricular‑arterial interaction index was detected (2,51 [1,18; 5,00]), which reﬂects a decrease in the functional abilities and efficiency of the heart. In patients with myocardial infarction and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, this indicator was in the range of normal values (0,78 [0,55; 1,07]), which indicates an eﬀective cardiac work. A study of MR‑proADM and NT‑proBNP levels demonstrated an increase in both groups (1,72 [1,56; 1,98] nmol/l and 779,3 [473; 2193] pg/ml in the group of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy; 0,89 [0,51; 1,35] nmol/l and 246 [118; 430] pg/ml in the group of patients with myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction), and the correlation analysis with left ventricular‑arterial coupling interaction parameters allowed identify statistically significant connections (in the group of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: with the level of MR‑proADM ‑ r=0,67, p=0,006, with the level of NT‑proBNP ‑ r=0,78, p<0,001; in the group of patients with myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: with MR‑proADM level ‑ r=‑0,52, p=0,024, with NT‑proBNP level ‑ r =‑0,38, p=0,037).Conclusion.The findings suggest a pathogenetic association between the biomarkers under study and the parameters of left ventricular‑arterial coupling interaction.

Download Full-text

P4525Differential effect of CRT in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy: longterm follow-up data from a single center cohort study

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0918 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

P C Kahr ◽

P Kaufmann ◽

J Kuster ◽

J Tonko ◽

A Breitenstein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽

Ejection Fraction ◽

Ischemic Cardiomyopathy ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Male Gender ◽

Ventricular Ejection ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Background Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in selected symptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and wide QRS complex. However, some patients fail to benefit from CRT. Data on the differential role of baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on outcome in patients with ischemic compared to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, N-ICM) is controversial. Purpose To test, whether ICM and N-ICM patients differ in outcome after CRT during long-term follow-up and whether predictors for survival after CRT differ between the two groups. Methods All patients undergoing CRT implantation at our institution between November 2000 and January 2015 were evaluated (n=418). All ICM/N-ICM patients with follow-up echocardiography within 1 year after CRT implantation (FU1) and a second echocardiography >1 year after FU1 (FU2) were included in the analysis (n=253). Primary post-hoc defined study endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, heart transplantation or implantation of a ventricular assist device. Results Compared to patients with N-ICM (n=160, median age 64 years [IQR 54–71], 71% male), ICM patients (n=93, median age 70 years [IQR 61–75], 84% male) were significantly older and had a higher prevalence of male gender, concomitant diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. There were no significant differences in pre-implantation echocardiographic features (LVEF, LVEDV, RV-FAC, severity of mitral regurgitation), QRS width and NT-proBNP levels between the groups. However, the hazard for reaching the primary endpoint was significantly higher in patients with ICM compared to N-ICM both on univariate analysis (HR 1.62 [95% CI 1.09–2.42], p=0.018) and after multivariate correction (aHR 2.13 [1.24–3.66], p=0.006). While higher NT-proBNP levels and greater right ventricular fractional area change were positively correlated with the hazard of death in both ICM and N-ICM (see Figure), lower LVEF at baseline was associated with an increased risk of death only in ICM but not in N-ICM (HR 0.95 [0.91–0.99], p=0.029 vs. HR 1.00 [0.96–1.04], p=0.945). Male gender, lower BMI and NYHA class ≥ III were positively correlated with the endpoint in N-ICM, but not in ICM. Importantly, LVEF at FU1 (median 4.7 months after implantation) and FU2 (median 47.1 months after implantation) were found to correlate signficantly with the endpoint in both ICM and N-ICM. Conclusion Our findings highlight important differences in ischemic and non-ischemic patient populations undergoing CRT. While overall survival of patients with N-ICM exceeds survival in ICM, several other factors (including LVEF) have differential effects on response to CRT in these two patient groups.

Download Full-text