AIMS: To determine the prevalence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) heart failure (HF) and to compare RV function between patients with preserved EF HF and those with reduced EF HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hundred patients (72 +/- 14 years, 59% male) with HF were prospectively enrolled. Fifty-one had preserved EF HF (LVEF > 50%). The prevalence of RV systolic dysfunction in patients with preserved EF HF was 33, 40, and 50%, by using RV fractional area change (FAC), tricuspid annular motion (TAM), and peak systolic tricuspid annular tissue velocity (S') criteria, respectively. Tricuspid S' and TAM correlated the best with LVEF (r = 0. 48, P < 0.01). Patients with preserved EF HF had higher RV FAC (54 +/- 18 vs. 36 +/- 20%, P < 0.01), TAM (17 +/- 1 vs.11 +/- 1 mm, P < 0.01), and tricuspid S' (14 +/- 6 vs. 9 +/- 4 cm/s, P < 0.01) compared with those with reduced EF HF. Of those 51 patients, 34% had tricuspid E/e' > 6 suggestive of elevated RV filling pressures. Early tricuspid inflow (E), early diastolic tricuspid annular tissue (e'), tricuspid E/e', and hepatic vein systolic velocities were also higher in patients with preserved EF HF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of RV systolic and diastolic dysfunctions was not uncommon in patients with preserved EF HF. However, patients with preserved EF HF had milder degree of RV systolic and diastolic dysfunctions compared with those with reduced EF HF.
AIMS: To determine the prevalence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) heart failure (HF) and to compare RV function between patients with preserved EF HF and those with reduced EF HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hundred patients (72 +/- 14 years, 59% male) with HF were prospectively enrolled. Fifty-one had preserved EF HF (LVEF > 50%). The prevalence of RV systolic dysfunction in patients with preserved EF HF was 33, 40, and 50%, by using RV fractional area change (FAC), tricuspid annular motion (TAM), and peak systolic tricuspid annular tissue velocity (S') criteria, respectively. Tricuspid S' and TAM correlated the best with LVEF (r = 0. 48, P < 0.01). Patients with preserved EF HF had higher RV FAC (54 +/- 18 vs. 36 +/- 20%, P < 0.01), TAM (17 +/- 1 vs.11 +/- 1 mm, P < 0.01), and tricuspid S' (14 +/- 6 vs. 9 +/- 4 cm/s, P < 0.01) compared with those with reduced EF HF. Of those 51 patients, 34% had tricuspid E/e' > 6 suggestive of elevated RV filling pressures. Early tricuspid inflow (E), early diastolic tricuspid annular tissue (e'), tricuspid E/e', and hepatic vein systolic velocities were also higher in patients with preserved EF HF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of RV systolic and diastolic dysfunctions was not uncommon in patients with preserved EF HF. However, patients with preserved EF HF had milder degree of RV systolic and diastolic dysfunctions compared with those with reduced EF HF.
Authors: Selma F Mohammed; Imad Hussain; Omar F AbouEzzeddine; Omar F Abou Ezzeddine; Hiroyuki Takahama; Susan H Kwon; Paul Forfia; Véronique L Roger; Margaret M Redfield Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John J Ryan; Jessica Huston; Shelby Kutty; Nathan D Hatton; Lindsay Bowman; Lian Tian; Julia E Herr; Amer M Johri; Stephen L Archer Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Michael A Burke; Daniel H Katz; Lauren Beussink; Senthil Selvaraj; Deepak K Gupta; Justin Fox; Sudarsana Chakrabarti; Andrew J Sauer; Jonathan D Rich; Benjamin H Freed; Sanjiv J Shah Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 8.790