Dataset Information

Case report on the importance of longitudinal analysis of left ventricular end-systolic volume, rather than ejection fraction, in a heart transplant patient.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sequential determinations of left ventricular (LV) volume constitute a cornerstone in the mechanical performance evaluation of any heart transplant (HTX) patient. A comprehensive analysis of volumetric data offers unique insight into adaptation and pathophysiology.

Case summary

With a focus on eight sequential biplane angiocardiographic LV end-systolic volume (ESV) determinations, we evaluate the clinical course of a male patient following HTX (female donor) at the age of 61 years. This former smoker had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and hypercholesterolaemia refractory to treatment, and presented with multivessel coronary artery disease. The later course was complicated by pulmonary hypertension, an abdominal aortic aneurysm, and secondary chronic kidney disease. After an additional episode of pulmonary embolism, the patient died at the age of 79. At one point, the ESV was > 700% higher than the starting value, and actually by far exceeded the relative change of any other volume-based metric evaluated, including ejection fraction (EF).

Discussion

The longitudinal study of LV volumetric data in HTX patients offers a unique window to the pathophysiology of remodelling and sex-specific adaptation processes. The present case documents that proper analysis of serial findings form a rich source of clinically relevant information regarding disease progression. End-systolic volume is the primary indicator, in contrast to the popular metric EF. This finding is supported by population-based studies reported in the literature. We conclude that comprehensive analysis of volumetric data, particularly ESV, contributes to personalized medicine and enhances insight into LV (reverse) remodelling, while also informing about prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Kerkhof PLM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164152 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceVolumetric measurements by transthoracic echocardiogram may better reflect left ventricular (LV) remodeling than conventional linear LV dimensions. However, the association of LV volumes with mortality in patients with chronic hemodynamically significant aortic regurgitation (AR) is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess whether LV volumes and volume-derived LV ejection fraction (Vol-LVEF) are determinants of mortality in AR.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included consecutive asymptomatic patients with chronic moderately severe to severe AR from a tertiary referral center (January 2004 through April 2019).ExposuresClinical and echocardiographic data were analyzed retrospectively. Aortic regurgitation severity was graded by comprehensive integrated approach. De novo disk-summation method was used to derive LV volumes and Vol-LVEF.Main outcome and measuresAssociations between all-cause mortality under medical surveillance and the following LV indexes: linear LV end-systolic dimension index (LVESDi), linear LVEF, LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi), and Vol-LVEF.ResultsOf 492 asymptomatic patients (mean [SD] age, 60 [17] years; 425 men [86%]), ischemic heart disease prevalence was low (41 [9%]), and 453 (92.1%) had preserved linear LVEF (≥50%) with mean (SD) LVESVi of 41 (15) mL/m2. At a median (interquartile range) of 5.4 (2.5-10.1) years, 66 patients (13.4%) died under medical surveillance; overall survival was not different than the age- and sex-matched general population (P = .55). Separate multivariate models, adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and AR severity, demonstrated that in addition to linear LVEF and LVESDi, LVESVi and Vol-LVEF were independently associated with mortality under surveillance (all P < .046) with similar C statistics (range, 0.83-0.84). Spline curves showed that continuous risks of death started to rise for both linear LVEF and Vol-LVEF less than 60%, LVESVi more than 40 to 45 mL/m2, and LVESDi above 21 to 22 mm/m2. As dichotomized variables, patients with LVESVi more than 45 mL/m2 exhibited increased relative death risk (hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02) while LVESDi more than 20 mm/m2 did not (P = .32). LVESVi more than 45 mL/m2 showed a decreased survival trend compared with expected population survival.Conclusions and relevanceIn this large asymptomatic cohort of patients with hemodynamically significant AR, LVESVi and Vol-LVEF worked equally as well as LVESDi and linear LVEF in risk discriminating patients with excess mortality. A LVESVi threshold of 45 mL/m2 or greater was significantly associated with an increased mortality risk.

Project description:Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is a common cause of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and myocardial fibrosis. The purpose of this study was to noninvasively evaluate changes in segmental LV extracellular volume (ECV) fraction, LV velocities, myocardial scar, and wall motion in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients.Cardiac MRI including pre- and postcontrast myocardial T1 mapping and velocity quantification (tissue phase mapping) of the LV (basal, midventricular, and apical short axis) was applied in 31 patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (50±18 years). Analysis based on the 16-segment American Heart Association model was used to evaluate the segmental distribution of ECV, peak systolic and diastolic myocardial velocities, scar determined by late gadolinium enhancement, and wall motion abnormalities. LV segments with scar or impaired wall motion were significantly associated with elevated ECV (rs =0.26; P<0.001) and reduced peak systolic radial velocities (r=-0.43; P<0.001). Regional myocardial velocities and ECV were similar for patients with reduced (n=12; ECV=0.28±0.06) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=19; ECV=0.30±0.09). Patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction showed significant relationships between increasing ECV and reduced systolic (r=-0.19; r=-0.30) and diastolic (r=0.34; r=0.26) radial and long-axis peak velocities (P<0.001). Even after excluding myocardial segments with late gadolinium enhancement, significant relationships between ECV and segmental LV velocities were maintained indicating the potential of elevated ECV to identify regional diffuse fibrosis not visible by late gadolinium enhancement, which was associated with impaired regional LV function.Regionally elevated ECV negatively affected myocardial velocities. The association of elevated regional ECV with reduced myocardial velocities independent of left ventricular ejection fraction suggests a structure-function relationship between altered ECV and segmental myocardial function in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Project description:AimsTwo key echocardiographic parameters that are currently used to diagnose heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are left atrial volume index (LAVi) and left ventricular mass index (LVMi). We investigated whether patients' characteristics, biomarkers, and co-morbidities are associated with these parameters and whether the relationships differ between patients with HFpEF or HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).MethodsWe consecutively enrolled 831 outpatients with typical signs and symptoms of HF and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and categorized patients based upon left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): LVEF < 40% (HFrEF), LVEF between 40% and 50% (HF with mid-range ejection fraction), and LVEF ≥ 50% (HFpEF). The study includes consecutively enrolled HF patients from an HF outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical centre in the Netherlands. All patients underwent baseline characterization, laboratory measurements, and echocardiography.ResultsFour hundred sixty-nine patients had HFrEF, 189 HF with mid-range ejection fraction, and 173 HFpEF. The patients with HFrEF were rather male [HFrEF: 323 (69%); HFpEF: 80 (46%); P < 0.001], and the age was comparable (HFrEF 67 ± 13; HFpEF 70 ± 14; P = 0.069). In HFpEF, more patients had hypertension [190 (40.5%); 114 (65.9%); P < 0.001], higher body mass indices (27 ± 8; 30 ± 7; P < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation [194 (41.4); 86 (49.7); P = 0.029]. The correlation analyses showed that in HFrEF patients, LAVi was significantly associated with age (β 0.293; P < 0.001), male gender (β 0.104; P = 0.042), body mass index (β -0160; P = 0.002), diastolic blood pressure (β -0.136; P < 0.001), New York Heart Association (β 0.174; P = 0.001), atrial fibrillation (β 0.381; P < 0.001), galectin 3 (β 0.230; P < 0.001), NT-proBNP (β 0.183; P < 0.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (β -0.205; P < 0.001), LVEF (β -0.173; P = 0.001), and LVMi (β 0.337; P < 0.001). In HFpEF patients, only age (β 0.326; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (β 0.386; P < 0.001), NT-proBNP (β 0.176; P = 0.036), and LVMi (β 0.213; P = 0.013) were associated with LAVi.ConclusionsAlthough LVMi and LAVi are hallmark parameters to diagnose HFpEF, they only correlate with a few characteristics of HF and mainly with atrial fibrillation. In contrast, in HFrEF patients, LAVi relates strongly to several other HF parameters. These findings underscore the complexity in visualizing the pathophysiology of HFpEF and question the relation between cardiac structural remodeling and the impact of co-morbidities.

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.