Importance of Left Ventricular End-systolic Volume Index as a Prognostic Indicator in Heart Failure with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. S16
Author(s):  
Marina Kato ◽  
Shuichi Kitada ◽  
Yu Kawada ◽  
Shohei Kikuchi ◽  
Nobuyuki Ohte
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Yu S Malov ◽  
I I Yarovenko

Left ventricular ejection fraction, not being an indicator of contractility, is widely used in practice for the diagnosis of heart failure. It reflects only a change in volume of the left ventricle. It was found that the ejection fraction is not so much dependent on the shock and final diastolic volume as on the final systolic volume. An inverse relationship was found between the left ventricular ejection fraction and the end systolic volume. The larger the end systolic volume, the lower the ejection fraction. High final ejection fraction corresponds to a small terminal systolic volume of the left ventricle. The ejection fraction, representing the ratio of the impact volume to the final diastolic, reflects structural changes in the left ventricle. The more these disorders, the lower the fraction of the ejection of the left ventricle. Its connection with heart failure is realized indirectly through structural restructuring of the myocardium. Low ejection fraction indicates severe damage to the myocardium and unfavorable prognosis for the patient. The empirically established emission fraction did not receive a scientific justification for the regulatory framework. According to the symmetrical approach to the study of a heart, the volume ratio of the left ventricle represents a golden proportion (0,618). Hence, the ideal left ventricular ejection fraction is 62 %, but not 50-80 %, as is customary. An increase or decrease in the ejection fraction indicates a change in the volume of the left ventricle. The clinical morphological similarity of patients with heart failure, classified according to functional classes and size of the ejection fraction, was revealed, which casted doubt on the introduction of the classification of heart failure by the size of the ejection fraction into practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Marina Kato ◽  
Shuichi Kitada ◽  
Yu Kawada ◽  
Kosuke Nakasuka ◽  
Shohei Kikuchi ◽  
...  

Background. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV volumes were reported to have prognostic efficacy in cardiac diseases. In particular, the end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) has been featured as the most reliable prognostic indicator. However, such efficacy in patients with LVEF ≥ 50% has not been elucidated. Methods. We screened the patients who received cardiac catheterization to evaluate coronary artery disease concomitantly with both left ventriculography and LV pressure recording using a catheter-tipped micromanometer and finally enrolled 355 patients with LVEF ≥ 50% and no history of heart failure (HF) after exclusion of the patients with severe coronary artery stenosis requiring early revascularization. Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was defined as adverse events. The prognostic value of LVESVI was investigated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results. A univariable analysis demonstrated that age, log BNP level, tau, peak − dP/dt, LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and LVESVI were associated with adverse events. A correlation analysis revealed that LVESVI was significantly associated with log BNP level (r = 0.356, p<0.001), +dP/dt (r = −0.324, p<0.001), −dP/dt (r = 0.391, p<0.001), and tau (r = 0.337, p<0.001). Multivariable analysis with a stepwise procedure using the variables with statistical significance in the univariable analysis revealed that aging, an increase in BNP level, and enlargement of LVESVI were significant prognostic indicators (age: HR: 1.071, 95% CI: 1.009–1.137, p=0.024; log BNP : HR : 1.533, 95% CI: 1.090–2.156, p=0.014; LVESVI : HR : 1.051, 95% CI: 1.011–1.093, p=0.013, respectively). According to the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for adverse events, log BNP level of 3.23 pg/ml (BNP level: 25.3 pg/ml) and an LVESVI of 24.1 ml/m2 were optimal cutoff values (BNP : AUC : 0.753, p<0.001, LVESVI : AUC : 0.729, p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion. In patients with LVEF ≥ 50%, an increased LVESVI is related to the adverse events. LV contractile performance even in the range of preserved LVEF should be considered as a role of a prognostic indicator.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document