Dataset Information

Speckle-tracking echocardiography in comparison with ejection fraction for prediction of cardiovascular mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of death in end-stage renal disease (ESRD). To develop better means to assess cardiovascular risk in these patients, we compared conventional echocardiography-derived left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) with the novel method of 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography to determine cardiac strain.

Methods

Predictive performances of conventional EF and speckle-tracking echocardiography-derived global longitudinal strain (GLS) were compared using receiver-operator curve (ROC) analyses and calibration by calibration plots. We also took into account other known cardiovascular risk factors through multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

The study comprised 171 ESRD patients (mean age 64 years, 64% male) on maintenance dialysis therapy (93% haemodialysis, 7% peritoneal dialysis) for an average period of 39 months. During 2.1 years of follow-up, 42 patients (25%) died from cardiovascular disease. ROC analysis of GLS resulted in an area under the curve of 0.700 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.603-0.797] compared with an area under the curve of EF of 0.615 (95% CI 0.514-0.716) (P = 0.059 for difference). The total absolute deviation between predicted and observed outcome frequencies obtained by calibration plots were 13.8% for EF compared with only 6.4% for GLS. Best results of ROC analysis (area under the curve = 0.759; P = 0.06), calibration and goodness-of-fit (χ² = 28.34, P ≤ 0.0001, R ² = 0.25) were achieved for GLS added to a baseline model consisting of known cardiovascular risk factors in a multivariate regression analysis.

Conclusions

In summary, in chronic dialysis patients, GLS is a more precise predictor of cardiovascular mortality than conventional echocardiography-derived EF.

SUBMITTER: Terhuerne J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8280917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsWe hypothesized that grading of diastolic dysfunction (DDF) according to two DDF grading algorithms and strain imaging yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods and resultsWe enrolled ambulatory HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction < 45%; N = 1 065) patients who underwent echocardiography and speckle tracking assessment of global longitudinal strain (GLS). Patients were stratified according to DDF grades (Grades I-III) according to two contemporary DDF grading algorithms. Prognostic performance was assessed by C-statistics. Of the originally 1 065 enrolled patients, a total of 645 (61%) patients (age: 67 ± 11 years, male: 72%, ejection fraction: 27 ± 9%) were classified according to both DDF grading algorithms. Concordance between the algorithms was moderate (kappa = 0.48) and the reclassification rate was 33%. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years (1.9, 4.7 years), 101 (16%) died from all causes. When comparing DDF Grade I vs. Grade III, both algorithms provided prognostic information [Nagueh: (hazard ratio) HR 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI),1.32-3.31, P = 0.002; Johansen: HR 2.47, 95% CI, 1.57-3.87, P < 0.001]. However, when comparing DDF Grade II vs. Grade III, only the Johansen algorithm yielded prognostic information (Nagueh: HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.60-1.77, P = 0.90; Johansen: HR 2.26, 95% CI, 1.35-3.77, P = 0.002). We found no difference in prognostic performance between the two algorithms (C-statistics: 0.604 vs. 0.623, P = 0.24). Assessed by C-statistics, the most powerful predictors of the endpoint from the two algorithms were E/e'-ratio (C-statistics: 0.644), tricuspid regurgitation velocity (C-statistics: 0.625) and E/A-ratio (C-statistics: 0.602). When adding GLS to a combination of these predictors, the prognostic performance increased significantly (C-statistics: 0.705 vs. C-statistics: 0.634, P = 0.028).ConclusionsEvaluation of DDF in patients with HFrEF yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality. Furthermore, adding GLS to contemporary algorithms of DDF adds novel prognostic information.

Project description:AimsSacubitril/valsartan (SV) reduced heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE-I to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial. However, this trial excluded patients with end stage of renal disease (ESRD); thus, the efficacy and safety of SV in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with ESRD remains uncertain.Methods and resultsWe retrospectively analysed the clinical and laboratory data of 501 HFrEF patients who administered with SV from March 2017 to April 2019 in a single tertiary university hospital. A total of 23 HFrEF patients with ESRD on dialysis [58.3% non-ischaemic heart failure; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): 29.7 ± 4.4%] were included in this study. At baseline and follow-up visit, we evaluated cardiovascular biomarkers such as high-sensitive troponin T (hsTnT), soluble ST2 (sST2), echocardiographic parameters, and clinical and adverse events. The mean dose of SV was 90 ± 43 mg/day at baseline and 123 ± 62 mg/day at last follow-up (follow-up duration: median 132 days). The level of hsTnT was significantly reduced from 236.2 ± 355.3 to 97.0 ± 14.0 pg/mL (P = 0.002), and the sST2 level was significantly reduced from 40.4 ± 44.0 to 19.6 ± 14.1 ng/mL (P = 0.005). LVEF was significantly improved from 29.7 ± 4.4% to 40.8 ± 10.4% (P = 0.002). During the follow-up, up-titration, down-titration, and maintenance of SV dosing were observed in 7 (30%), 5 (21.7%), and 11 patients (47.8%), respectively. SV down-titration group had adverse events including symptomatic hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg) (n = 4) and dizziness (n = 1), but they did not discontinue SV therapy.ConclusionsWe found that SV could safely reduce the hsTnT and sST2 levels and improve LVEF in HFrEF patients with ESRD. As far as we know, this is the first study to show the efficacy and safety of SV in HFrEF with ESRD on dialysis. Larger prospective, long-term follow-up study should be warranted.