scholarly journals P320 Left atrial mechanics in moderate mitral valve disease: earlier markers of damage

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Alves ◽  
A V Marinho ◽  
J A Ferreira ◽  
J Milner ◽  
A Freitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Strain Rate ◽  
Mitral Valve Disease ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Global Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Valve Disease ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection

Abstract BACKGROUND Left atrial (LA) mechanics is impaired in mitral valve disease, but it is not clear whether reservoir, conduit or contractile functions are differentially impaired in stenosis (MS) or regurgitation (MR). We aimed to study LA mechanics in patients with moderate MR or moderate MS and identify discriminators of disease. METHODS We conducted a prospective, observational study of 100 patients with isolated moderate MR and 100 patients with moderate MS. LA mechanics with speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) assessed LA reservoir (LA ɛsys and SRs), conduit(LAɛe, SRe), and contractile (LAɛa, SRa) functions. Left ventricle (LV) functional parameters were assessed as well, including LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-diastolic diameter (LVDD) and LV global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS). RESULTS The mean age was 67 ± 14 years and 75% were female. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-diastolic diameter (LVDD), LV global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) did not differ between MR and MS (table 1).LA indexed volume (LAVi) and LA strain did not vary between MR and MS, but strain rate did. SRs and SRe had better values in MR, whereas SRa had worse values in MR (table 1). SRe (<-0.7%) had the superior discriminative power for MR, with an area under the curve of 0.85, sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 85%. CONCLUSIONS LA strain rate phases were the only parameters that varied between MR and MS. Contractile phase strain rate was more impaired in MR and conduit phase strain rate in MS. This highly specific data reflect the earlier hemodynamic changes occurring in LA in the setting of mitral valve disease. mMR mMS P value LVEF (±SD,%) 57.4 ± 6.4 59.6 ± 4.6 0.145 LV-GLS (±SD, %) -17.7 ± 4.5 -17.1 ± 3.5 0.587 sPAP (±SD, mmHg) 30.3 ± 10.5 32.4 ± 8.3 0.387 LAVi (± SD, ml/m2) 46.3 ± 6.4 48.2 ± 7.4 0.281 LAɛs (± SD, %) 15.8 ± 7.3 13.3 ± 9 0.062 LAɛe (± SD, %) 8.4 ± 4.7 7.1 ± 5.4 0.074 LAɛa (± SD, %) 6.3 ± 4.8 7.4 ± 4.5 0.081 LA SRs (± SD, %) 0.8 ± 0.4 0.6 ± 0.3 0.004 LA SRe (± SD, %) -0.9 ± 0.5 -0.5 ± 0.3 <0.001 LA SRa (± SD, %) -0.5 ± 0.4 -0.8 ± 0.5 0.007

scholarly journals Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Peripartum Cardiomyopathy: Comparison with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1752
Author(s):  
Joanna Petryka-Mazurkiewicz ◽  
Karolina Kryczka ◽  
Łukasz Mazurkiewicz ◽  
Barbara Miłosz-Wieczorek ◽  
Mateusz Śpiewak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Strain Rate ◽  
Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Global Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Right Atrial ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection

Background: Peripartum (PPCM) and dilated (DCM) cardiomyopathies are distinct forms of cardiac disease that share certain aspects in clinical presentation. Aim: We hypothesized that different cardiac structural changes underlie PPCM and DCM, and we aimed to investigate them with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: We included 21 PPCM patients (30.5 ± 5.9 years) and 30 female DCM patients (41.5 ± 16.8 years) matched for left ventricular ejection fraction. Biventricular and biatrial volumetric and functional parameters were assessed along with ventricular and atrial strain indices based on feature-tracking techniques. The presence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was also assessed. Results: In PPCM, the left ventricular (LV) stroke volume index was lower (p = 0.04), right atrial (RA) minimal and pre-systolic volumes were higher (p < 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively), and the total RA ejection fraction was lower (p = 0.02) in comparison to DCM. Moreover, in PPCM, the LV global longitudinal strain (p = 0.03), global circumferential strain rate (p = 0.04), and global longitudinal strain rate (p < 0.01) were less impaired than in DCM. Both PPCM and DCM patients with LGE had more dilated ventricles and more impaired LV and left atrial function than in PPCM and DCM patients without LGE. Conclusions: Subtle differences appear on CMR between PPCM and DCM. Most importantly, the RA is larger and more impaired, and LV global longitudinal strain is less reduced in PPCM than in DCM. Furthermore, similarly to DCM, PPCM patients with LGE have more dilated and impaired ventricles than patients without LGE.

CMR fast-SENC segmental intramyocardial LV strain monitors decline in heart function before ejection fraction in patient with mitral valve disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Montenbruck ◽  
S Kelle ◽  
S Esch ◽  
A.K Schwarz ◽  
S Giusca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiac Function ◽  
Mitral Valve Disease ◽  
Heart Function ◽  
Global Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Image Plane ◽  
Valve Disease ◽  
Peak Strain ◽  
Regional Dysfunction

Abstract Background Ejection fraction is the standard metric to analyze cardiac function in the left (LV) or right (RV) ventricles. However, these global metrics are not able to characterize patients in which the heart compensates for regional dysfunction. More sensitive metrics are needed to detect subclinical regional dysfunction before cardiac remodeling results in changes in ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS). Fast-SENC intramyocardial strain (fSENC) is a unique cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) modality that measures intramyocardial contraction in 1 heartbeat per image plane. This prospective registry compares segmental fSENC to standard CMR calculations (e.g. LVEF, volumes, mass, etc.) in patients with mitral valve disease. Methods A single center, prospective registry of CMR scans acquired with a 1.5T scanner were evaluated for standard CMR calculations as well as fSENC scans. Intramyocardial LV & RV strain was quantified with MyoStrain software. Three short axis scans (basal, midventricular, & apical) were used to calculate peak strain in 16 LV & 6 RV longitudinal segments while three long axis scans (2-, 3-, & 4-chamber) were used to calculate 21 LV & 5 RV circumferential segments. Results A total of 493 scans in 424 patients with moderate or severe mitral regurgitation were included in the study. Patients had an average (± stdev) age of 60 (15) yrs and BMI of 27 (4) kg/m2; 63% had arterial hypertension, 19% diabetes mellitus, 10% atrial fibrillation, 15% pulmonary disease, and 32% coronary artery disease. Figure 1 shows the non-linear relationship between segmental fSENC strain (% of normal LV segments ≤−17%) versus LVEF (R=0.81). Conclusion Segmental fSENC detects subclinical LV dysfunction before changes in LVEF. Evaluating segmental longitudinal and circumferential fSENC peak strain provides an alternative metric that shows consistent changes in cardiac function in patients with mitral valve disease irrespective of global calculations that are dependent on loading conditions. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Left ventricular mechanical dispersion predicts arrhythmic risk in mitral valve prolapse

Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (14) ◽  
pp. 1063-1069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Ermakov ◽  
Radhika Gulhar ◽  
Lisa Lim ◽  
Dwight Bibby ◽  
Qizhi Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Myocardial Fibrosis ◽  
Mitral Valve Prolapse ◽  
Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Global Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Peak Strain ◽  
Mechanical Dispersion ◽  
Lv Ejection Fraction

ObjectiveBileaflet mitral valve prolapse (MVP) with either focal or diffuse myocardial fibrosis has been linked to ventricular arrhythmia and/or sudden cardiac arrest. Left ventricular (LV) mechanical dispersion by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) is a measure of heterogeneity of ventricular contraction previously associated with myocardial fibrosis. The aim of this study is to determine whether mechanical dispersion can identify MVP at higher arrhythmic risk.MethodsWe identified 32 consecutive arrhythmic MVPs (A-MVP) with a history of complex ventricular ectopy on Holter/event monitor (n=23) or defibrillator placement (n=9) along with 27 MVPs without arrhythmic complications (NA-MVP) and 39 controls. STE was performed to calculate global longitudinal strain (GLS) as the average peak longitudinal strain from an 18-segment LV model and mechanical dispersion as the SD of the time to peak strain of each segment.ResultsMVPs had significantly higher mechanical dispersion compared with controls (52 vs 42 ms, p=0.005) despite similar LV ejection fraction (62% vs 63%, p=0.42) and GLS (−19.7 vs −21, p=0.045). A-MVP and NA-MVP had similar demographics, LV ejection fraction and GLS (all p>0.05). A-MVP had more bileaflet prolapse (69% vs 44%, p=0.031) with a similar degree of mitral regurgitation (mostly trace or mild in both groups) (p>0.05). A-MVP exhibited greater mechanical dispersion when compared with NA-MVP (59 vs 43 ms, p=0.0002). Mechanical dispersion was the only significant predictor of arrhythmic risk on multivariate analysis (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11, p=0.006).ConclusionsSTE-derived mechanical dispersion may help identify MVP patients at higher arrhythmic risk.

scholarly journals P818 Association between baseline left ventricular longitudinal strain and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I H Jung ◽  
Y S Byun ◽  
J H Park
Keyword(s):  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Myocardial Dysfunction ◽  
Global Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Reverse Remodeling ◽  
Lv Function ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements no Background Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) offers sensitive and reproducible measurement of myocardial dysfunction. The authors sought to evaluate whether LV GLS at the time of diagnosis may predict LV reverse remodeling (LVRR) in DCM patients with sinus rhythm and also investigate the relationship between baseline LV GLS and follow-up LVEF. Methods We enrolled patients with DCM who had been initially diagnosed, evaluated, and followed at our institute. Results During the mean follow-up duration of 37.3 ± 21.7 months, LVRR occurred in 28% of patients (n = 45) within 14.7 ± 10.0 months of medical therapy. The initial LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients who recovered LV function was 26.1 ± 7.9% and was not different from the value of 27.1 ± 7.4% (p = 0.49) of those who did not recover. There was a moderate and highly significant correlation between baseline LV GLS and follow-up LVEF (r = 0.717; p &lt;0.001). Conclusion There was a significant correlation between baseline LV GLS and follow-up LVEF in this population. Baseline Follow-up Difference (95% CI) p-value All patients (n = 160) LVEDDI, mm/m2 35.6 ± 6.6 35.6 ± 6.6 -2.7 (-3.4 to -2.0) &lt;0.001 LVESDI, mm/m2 30.3 ± 6.1 26.6 ± 6.6 -3.7 (-4.6 to -2.8) &lt;0.001 LVEDVI, mL/m2 95.0 ± 30.7 74.3 ± 30.2 -20.7 (-25.6 to -15.8) &lt;0.001 LVESVI, mL/m2 70.0 ± 24.8 50.2 ± 26.8 -19.8 (-24.2 to -15.4) &lt;0.001 LVEF, % 26.8 ± 7.5 33.9 ± 12.6 7.2 (5.2 to 9.2) &lt;0.001 LV GLS (-%) 9.2 ± 3.1 11.0 ± 4.8 1.8 (1.3 to 2.2) &lt;0.001 Patients without LVRR (n = 115) LVEDDI, mm/m2 34.9 ± 6.8 34.1 ± 6.8 -0.8 (-1.3 to -0.3) 0.002 LVESDI, mm/m2 29.5 ± 6.1 28.4 ± 6.4 -1.4 (-1.8 to -0.4) 0.002 LVEDVI, mL/m2 92.0 ± 30.5 83.4 ± 29.8 -8.6 (-12.4 to -4.8) &lt;0.001 LVESVI, mL/m2 67.1 ± 24.4 59.5 ± 25.3 -7.6 (-10.9 to -4.3) &lt;0.001 LVEF, % 27.1 ± 7.4 27.8 ± 7.4 0.7 (-0.2 to 1.6) 0.126 LV GLS (-%) 8.2 ± 2.9 8.7 ± 3.2 0.5 (0.7 to 3.6) &lt;0.001 Patients with LVRR (n = 45) LVEDDI, mm/m2 37.4 ± 5.5 29.8 ± 5.2 -7.5 (-9.1 to -6.0) &lt;0.001 LVESDI, mm/m2 32.2 ± 5.7 21.9 ± 4.4 -10.3 (-11.9 to -8.6) &lt;0.001 LVEDVI, mL/m2 102.7 ± 30.2 51.1 ± 15.0 -51.7 (-61.6 to -41.7) &lt;0.001 LVESVI, mL/m2 77.3 ± 24.5 26.4 ± 11.3 -50.9 (-58.8 to -43.1) &lt;0.001 LVEF, % 26.1 ± 7.9 49.4 ± 9.5 23.9 (20.4 to 27.5) &lt;0.001 LV GLS (-%) 11.9 ± 1.6 16.9 ± 2.7 5.1 (4.2 to 5.9) &lt;0.001 Baseline and Follow-up LV Functional Echocardiographic Data Abstract P818 Figure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document