Cargando…

Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS: Several different diagnostic parameters can be used to assess left ventricular (LV) longitudinal systolic function, but no studies comparing their predictive value have been conducted. We sought to compare the prognostic value of LV long‐axis function parameters at rest and exercise using the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gozdzik, Anna, Marwick, Thomas H., Przewlocka‐Kosmala, Monika, Jankowska, Ewa A., Ponikowski, Piotr, Kosmala, Wojciech
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33570238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13247
_version_ 1783672340773601280
author Gozdzik, Anna
Marwick, Thomas H.
Przewlocka‐Kosmala, Monika
Jankowska, Ewa A.
Ponikowski, Piotr
Kosmala, Wojciech
author_facet Gozdzik, Anna
Marwick, Thomas H.
Przewlocka‐Kosmala, Monika
Jankowska, Ewa A.
Ponikowski, Piotr
Kosmala, Wojciech
author_sort Gozdzik, Anna
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Several different diagnostic parameters can be used to assess left ventricular (LV) longitudinal systolic function, but no studies comparing their predictive value have been conducted. We sought to compare the prognostic value of LV long‐axis function parameters at rest and exercise using the population with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical and biochemical variables were collected at baseline in 201 patients with HFpEF. Echocardiography was performed at rest and immediately after exercise, with measurement of mitral annular plane systolic excursion, systolic tissue velocity (s′), global longitudinal strain (GLS), and global longitudinal strain rate (GLSR). Participants were followed for 48 (24–60) months for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Seventy‐four patients (36.8%) met the study endpoint. Cox regression analysis revealed that after adjustment for Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and peak VO(2), heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were significantly associated with GLS at rest [hazard ratio (HR) 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–0.98; P = 0.016], GLS after exercise (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.77–0.91; P < 0.001), and GLSR after exercise (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04–0.48; P = 0.002). The addition of each of the following: exercise GLS and GLSR and resting GLS to the base model including Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure, BNP, and peak VO(2) improved predictive power for the study endpoint [net reclassification improvement (NRI) = 49%, P < 0.001; NRI = 42%, P = 0.004; and NRI = 38%, P = 0.009, respectively]. Exercise GLS was the only longitudinal parameter significantly improving c‐statistics of the base model (0.68 vs. 0.73; P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic parameters of LV longitudinal function are not equipotential in predicting adverse outcomes in HFpEF. LV deformation indices, especially assessed with exercise, show the highest predictive utility independent from and incremental to clinical data and BNP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8006621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80066212021-04-01 Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Gozdzik, Anna Marwick, Thomas H. Przewlocka‐Kosmala, Monika Jankowska, Ewa A. Ponikowski, Piotr Kosmala, Wojciech ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: Several different diagnostic parameters can be used to assess left ventricular (LV) longitudinal systolic function, but no studies comparing their predictive value have been conducted. We sought to compare the prognostic value of LV long‐axis function parameters at rest and exercise using the population with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical and biochemical variables were collected at baseline in 201 patients with HFpEF. Echocardiography was performed at rest and immediately after exercise, with measurement of mitral annular plane systolic excursion, systolic tissue velocity (s′), global longitudinal strain (GLS), and global longitudinal strain rate (GLSR). Participants were followed for 48 (24–60) months for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Seventy‐four patients (36.8%) met the study endpoint. Cox regression analysis revealed that after adjustment for Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and peak VO(2), heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were significantly associated with GLS at rest [hazard ratio (HR) 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–0.98; P = 0.016], GLS after exercise (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.77–0.91; P < 0.001), and GLSR after exercise (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04–0.48; P = 0.002). The addition of each of the following: exercise GLS and GLSR and resting GLS to the base model including Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure, BNP, and peak VO(2) improved predictive power for the study endpoint [net reclassification improvement (NRI) = 49%, P < 0.001; NRI = 42%, P = 0.004; and NRI = 38%, P = 0.009, respectively]. Exercise GLS was the only longitudinal parameter significantly improving c‐statistics of the base model (0.68 vs. 0.73; P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic parameters of LV longitudinal function are not equipotential in predicting adverse outcomes in HFpEF. LV deformation indices, especially assessed with exercise, show the highest predictive utility independent from and incremental to clinical data and BNP. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8006621/ /pubmed/33570238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13247 Text en © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Gozdzik, Anna
Marwick, Thomas H.
Przewlocka‐Kosmala, Monika
Jankowska, Ewa A.
Ponikowski, Piotr
Kosmala, Wojciech
Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_full Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_fullStr Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_short Comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_sort comparison of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function parameters in the prediction of adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33570238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13247
work_keys_str_mv AT gozdzikanna comparisonofleftventricularlongitudinalsystolicfunctionparametersinthepredictionofadverseoutcomeinheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT marwickthomash comparisonofleftventricularlongitudinalsystolicfunctionparametersinthepredictionofadverseoutcomeinheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT przewlockakosmalamonika comparisonofleftventricularlongitudinalsystolicfunctionparametersinthepredictionofadverseoutcomeinheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT jankowskaewaa comparisonofleftventricularlongitudinalsystolicfunctionparametersinthepredictionofadverseoutcomeinheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT ponikowskipiotr comparisonofleftventricularlongitudinalsystolicfunctionparametersinthepredictionofadverseoutcomeinheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT kosmalawojciech comparisonofleftventricularlongitudinalsystolicfunctionparametersinthepredictionofadverseoutcomeinheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction