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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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