BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the normal values for strain (S), systolic strain rate (SRs) and synchrony by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) in heart transplant (HTx) recipients who had normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and no clinically significant complications. METHODS: We evaluated S and SRs in 40 HTx patients at 1 year after transplant and 82 healthy controls with STE using velocity vector imaging. RESULTS: Mean (SD) global longitudinal S and SRs, respectively, were lower in the transplant group compared with controls [-13.43% (2.39%) vs -17.28% (2.30%), p < 0.001; -0.83 (0.15) s(-1) vs -0.96 (0.13) s(-1), p < 0.001]. These variables were good for differentiating between groups: area under the curve was 0.88 for S and 0.73 for SRs. The differences remained significant after adjustment for other clinical variables. Global circumferential S and SRs were similar between groups. The standard deviation of the global longitudinal S time to peak of the 16 segments for HTx and control groups, respectively, was 41.67 (13.53) milliseconds vs 32.57 (12.81) milliseconds (p < 0.001). With 58.2 milliseconds as a cutoff value to define left ventricular synchrony, only 3 (8%) of the HTx patients and 4 (5%) of the control subjects were above that value (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study describing normal values for S and SRs and synchrony by STE in a HTx population with normal LVEF: longitudinal S and SRs were reduced; circumferential deformation indexes were normal; and left ventricular synchrony was preserved.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the normal values for strain (S), systolic strain rate (SRs) and synchrony by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) in heart transplant (HTx) recipients who had normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and no clinically significant complications. METHODS: We evaluated S and SRs in 40 HTxpatients at 1 year after transplant and 82 healthy controls with STE using velocity vector imaging. RESULTS: Mean (SD) global longitudinal S and SRs, respectively, were lower in the transplant group compared with controls [-13.43% (2.39%) vs -17.28% (2.30%), p < 0.001; -0.83 (0.15) s(-1) vs -0.96 (0.13) s(-1), p < 0.001]. These variables were good for differentiating between groups: area under the curve was 0.88 for S and 0.73 for SRs. The differences remained significant after adjustment for other clinical variables. Global circumferential S and SRs were similar between groups. The standard deviation of the global longitudinal S time to peak of the 16 segments for HTx and control groups, respectively, was 41.67 (13.53) milliseconds vs 32.57 (12.81) milliseconds (p < 0.001). With 58.2 milliseconds as a cutoff value to define left ventricular synchrony, only 3 (8%) of the HTxpatients and 4 (5%) of the control subjects were above that value (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study describing normal values for S and SRs and synchrony by STE in a HTx population with normal LVEF: longitudinal S and SRs were reduced; circumferential deformation indexes were normal; and left ventricular synchrony was preserved.
Authors: Gregory T Armstrong; Vijaya M Joshi; Kirsten K Ness; Thomas H Marwick; Nan Zhang; DeoKumar Srivastava; Brian P Griffin; Richard A Grimm; James Thomas; Dermot Phelan; Patrick Collier; Kevin R Krull; Daniel A Mulrooney; Daniel M Green; Melissa M Hudson; Leslie L Robison; Juan Carlos Plana Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Justin Godown; Debra A Dodd; Michael Stanley; Corey Havens; Meng Xu; James C Slaughter; David W Bearl; Jonathan H Soslow Journal: Pediatr Transplant Date: 2018-03-25
Authors: Haben Berhane; Alexander Ruh; Nazia Husain; Joshua D Robinson; Cynthia K Rigsby; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Elvin Zengin; Dirk Westermann; Ulf Radunski; Francisco Ojeda; Kai Muellerleile; Hermann Reichenspurner; Stefan Blankenberg; Christoph Sinning Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Robert Chamberlain; Natalie F A Edwards; Gregory M Scalia; Jonathan Chan Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Justin Godown; William A McEachern; Debra A Dodd; Michael Stanley; Corey Havens; Meng Xu; James C Slaughter; David W Bearl; Jonathan H Soslow Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Heynric B Grotenhuis; Emile C A Nyns; Paul F Kantor; Anne I Dipchand; Steven C Greenway; Shi-Joon Yoo; George Tomlinson; Rajiv R Chaturvedi; Lars Grosse-Wortmann Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Tor Skibsted Clemmensen; Hans Eiskjær; Pernille B Kofoed-Nielsen; Søren Høyer; Steen Hvitfeldt Poulsen Journal: Case Rep Transplant Date: 2014-06-11