scholarly journals P6147Regional Wall Motion, Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve and Global Left ventricular contractile reserve: triple imaging in Stress Echo 2020

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Q. Ciampi ◽  
L. Cortigiani ◽  
A. Zagatina ◽  
N. Gaibazzi ◽  
C. Borguezan Daros ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Daros ◽  
L Cortigiani ◽  
Q Ciampi ◽  
N Gaibazzi ◽  
A Zagatina ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Coronary microvascular disease has been described in heart failure (HF) in presence of angiographically normal epicardial coronary arteries. The prevalence of a reduction of coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in different types of HF and its link with left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) is unclear. Aim To assess CFVR and LVCR in HF. Methods In a prospective, observational, multicenter study, we recruited 380 patients (234 male, 61%, age 66±11 years): 143 (38%) with HF and reduced (<40%) ejection fraction (HFrEF); 98 (26%) with HF and mid-range (40–50%) ejection fraction (HFmrEF); 139 (36%) patients with HF and preserved (>50%) ejection fraction (HFpEF). A control group of 52 asymptomatic patients (23 male, 44%, age 61±14 years) referred to testing for screening was also selected (Controls). All patients underwent dipyridamole (0.84 mg/kg) stress echocardiography in 12 accredited laboratories of 3 countries (Argentina, Brazil and Italy). CFVR was calculated as the stress/rest ratio of diastolic peak flow velocity pulsed-Doppler assessment of left anterior descending (LAD) artery flow. We assessed left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) based on global LV Force (systolic blood pressure/end-systolic volume). Results Reduced (≤2.0) CFVR was observed in 0/52 controls (0%); 25/139 HFpEF (18%); 28/98 HFmrEF (29%); 78/143 HFrEF (54%, p<0.001 vs all other groups). CFVR was highest in controls (2.80±0.57), lower in HFpEF (2.51±0.57) and HFmrEF (2.26±0.44), lowest in HFrEF (2.04±0.48, p<0.001 vs all other groups). The correlation with LVCR was absent in controls (r=0.098, p=0.491) and HFmrEF (r=0.032, p=0.756), present in HFrEF (r=0.375, p<0.001) and HFpEF (r=0.314, p<0.001). LVCR vs CFVR Conclusions CFVR is frequently abnormal in all types of HF, although more frequently and more profoundly in HFrEF. CFVR mirrors contractile reserve in HFrEF and - less tightly - in HFpEF.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valéria Fontenelle Angelim Pereira ◽  
Clovis De Carvalho Frimm ◽  
Ana Clara Tude Rodrigues ◽  
Jeane Mike Tsutsui ◽  
Mariana Cúri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document