Cargando…
Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same
BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS), most commonly measured at the endocardium, has been shown to be superior to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) for the identification of systolic dysfunction and prediction of outcomes in heart failure (HF). We hypothesized that strains measu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7713324/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33267877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00680-6 |
_version_ | 1783618556312682496 |
---|---|
author | Xu, Lingyu Pagano, Joseph J. Haykowksy, Mark J. Ezekowitz, Justin A. Oudit, Gavin Y. Mikami, Yoko Howarth, Andrew White, James A. Dyck, Jason R. B. Anderson, Todd Paterson, D. Ian Thompson, Richard B. |
author_facet | Xu, Lingyu Pagano, Joseph J. Haykowksy, Mark J. Ezekowitz, Justin A. Oudit, Gavin Y. Mikami, Yoko Howarth, Andrew White, James A. Dyck, Jason R. B. Anderson, Todd Paterson, D. Ian Thompson, Richard B. |
author_sort | Xu, Lingyu |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS), most commonly measured at the endocardium, has been shown to be superior to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) for the identification of systolic dysfunction and prediction of outcomes in heart failure (HF). We hypothesized that strains measured at different myocardial layers (endocardium = ENDO, epicardium = EPI, average = AVE) will have distinct diagnostic and predictive performance for patients with HF. METHODS: Layer-specific GLS, layer-specific global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) were evaluated by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) feature tracking in the Alberta HEART study. A total of 453 subjects consisted of healthy controls (controls, n = 77), at-risk for HF (at-risk, n = 143), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n = 87), HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF, n = 88) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 58). For outcomes analysis, CMR-derived imaging parameters were adjusted with a base model that included age and N-terminal prohormone of b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to test their independent association with 5-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: GLS_EPI distinguished all groups with preserved LVEF (controls − 16.5 ± 2.4% vs. at-risk − 15.5 ± 2.7% vs. HFpEF − 14.1 ± 3.0%, p < 0.001) while GLS_ENDO and all GCS (all layers) were similar among these groups. GRS was reduced in HFpEF (41.1 ± 13.8% versus 48.9 ± 10.7% in controls, p < 0.001) and the difference between GLS_EPI and GLS_ENDO were significantly larger in HFpEF as compared to controls. Within the preserved LVEF groups, reduced GRS and GLS_EPI were significantly associated with increased LV mass (LVM) and LVM/LV end-diastolic volume EDV (concentricity). In multivariable analysis, only GLS_AVE and GRS predicted 5-year all-cause mortality (all ps < 0.05), with the strongest association with 5-year all-cause mortality by Akaike Information Criterion analysis and significant incremental value for outcomes prediction beyond LVEF or GLS_ENDO by the likelihood ratio test. CONCLUSION: Global strains measured on endocardium, epicardium or averaged across the wall thickness are not equivalent for the identification of systolic dysfunction or outcomes prediction in HF. The endocardium-specific strains were shown to have poorest all-around performance. GLS_AVE and GRS were the only CMR parameters to be significantly associated with 5-year all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. GLS_EPI and GRS, as well as the difference in endocardial and epicardial strains, were sensitive to systolic dysfunction among HF patients with normal LVEF (> 55%), in whom lower strains were associated with increased concentricity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7713324 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77133242020-12-03 Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same Xu, Lingyu Pagano, Joseph J. Haykowksy, Mark J. Ezekowitz, Justin A. Oudit, Gavin Y. Mikami, Yoko Howarth, Andrew White, James A. Dyck, Jason R. B. Anderson, Todd Paterson, D. Ian Thompson, Richard B. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS), most commonly measured at the endocardium, has been shown to be superior to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) for the identification of systolic dysfunction and prediction of outcomes in heart failure (HF). We hypothesized that strains measured at different myocardial layers (endocardium = ENDO, epicardium = EPI, average = AVE) will have distinct diagnostic and predictive performance for patients with HF. METHODS: Layer-specific GLS, layer-specific global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) were evaluated by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) feature tracking in the Alberta HEART study. A total of 453 subjects consisted of healthy controls (controls, n = 77), at-risk for HF (at-risk, n = 143), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n = 87), HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF, n = 88) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 58). For outcomes analysis, CMR-derived imaging parameters were adjusted with a base model that included age and N-terminal prohormone of b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to test their independent association with 5-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: GLS_EPI distinguished all groups with preserved LVEF (controls − 16.5 ± 2.4% vs. at-risk − 15.5 ± 2.7% vs. HFpEF − 14.1 ± 3.0%, p < 0.001) while GLS_ENDO and all GCS (all layers) were similar among these groups. GRS was reduced in HFpEF (41.1 ± 13.8% versus 48.9 ± 10.7% in controls, p < 0.001) and the difference between GLS_EPI and GLS_ENDO were significantly larger in HFpEF as compared to controls. Within the preserved LVEF groups, reduced GRS and GLS_EPI were significantly associated with increased LV mass (LVM) and LVM/LV end-diastolic volume EDV (concentricity). In multivariable analysis, only GLS_AVE and GRS predicted 5-year all-cause mortality (all ps < 0.05), with the strongest association with 5-year all-cause mortality by Akaike Information Criterion analysis and significant incremental value for outcomes prediction beyond LVEF or GLS_ENDO by the likelihood ratio test. CONCLUSION: Global strains measured on endocardium, epicardium or averaged across the wall thickness are not equivalent for the identification of systolic dysfunction or outcomes prediction in HF. The endocardium-specific strains were shown to have poorest all-around performance. GLS_AVE and GRS were the only CMR parameters to be significantly associated with 5-year all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. GLS_EPI and GRS, as well as the difference in endocardial and epicardial strains, were sensitive to systolic dysfunction among HF patients with normal LVEF (> 55%), in whom lower strains were associated with increased concentricity. BioMed Central 2020-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7713324/ /pubmed/33267877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00680-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Xu, Lingyu Pagano, Joseph J. Haykowksy, Mark J. Ezekowitz, Justin A. Oudit, Gavin Y. Mikami, Yoko Howarth, Andrew White, James A. Dyck, Jason R. B. Anderson, Todd Paterson, D. Ian Thompson, Richard B. Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
title | Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
title_full | Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
title_fullStr | Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
title_full_unstemmed | Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
title_short | Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
title_sort | layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7713324/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33267877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00680-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xulingyu layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT paganojosephj layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT haykowksymarkj layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT ezekowitzjustina layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT ouditgaviny layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT mikamiyoko layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT howarthandrew layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT whitejamesa layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT dyckjasonrb layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT andersontodd layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT patersondian layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT thompsonrichardb layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame AT layerspecificstraininpatientswithheartfailureusingcardiovascularmagneticresonancenotalllayersarethesame |