OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to define the mechanism of preserved ejection fraction (EF) despite depressed myocardial strains in hypertension (HTN). BACKGROUND: Concentric left ventricular (LV) remodeling in HTN may have normal or supranormal EF despite depressed myocardial strains. The reason for such discordance is not clear. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the LV mechanics in a well-defined HTN population to define underlying reasons for such a paradox. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients with resistant HTN and 45 healthy control subjects were studied by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and tissue tagging with 3-dimensional analysis. Amplitude and directional vector of longitudinal (Ell), circumferential (Ecc), and principal strain for maximal shortening (E3) were computed at basal, mid, and distal LV levels, respectively. LV torsion, defined as the rotation angle of apex relative to base, and LV twist, which accounts for the effects of differential LV remodeling on torsion for comparison among the 2 groups, were also calculated. RESULTS: LV mass index and LV mass/LV end-diastolic volume ratio were significantly higher in the HTN group compared with controls, consistent with concentric LV remodeling. Ell and Ecc were significantly decreased in amplitude with altered directional vector in HTN compared with controls. However, the amplitude of E3 was similar in the 2 groups. Torsion and twist were significantly higher in HTN, which was mainly due to increase in apical rotation. The HTN group demonstrated significantly increased LV wall thickening compared with controls that resulted in greater LVEF in the HTN group compared with controls (70% vs. 65%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In compensated LV remodeling secondary to HTN, there is increased LV wall thickening with preserved E3 and increased torsion compared with normal controls. This, therefore, contributes to supranormal LVEF in HTN despite depressed longitudinal and circumferential strains.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to define the mechanism of preserved ejection fraction (EF) despite depressed myocardial strains in hypertension (HTN). BACKGROUND: Concentric left ventricular (LV) remodeling in HTN may have normal or supranormal EF despite depressed myocardial strains. The reason for such discordance is not clear. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the LV mechanics in a well-defined HTN population to define underlying reasons for such a paradox. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients with resistant HTN and 45 healthy control subjects were studied by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and tissue tagging with 3-dimensional analysis. Amplitude and directional vector of longitudinal (Ell), circumferential (Ecc), and principal strain for maximal shortening (E3) were computed at basal, mid, and distal LV levels, respectively. LV torsion, defined as the rotation angle of apex relative to base, and LV twist, which accounts for the effects of differential LV remodeling on torsion for comparison among the 2 groups, were also calculated. RESULTS: LV mass index and LV mass/LV end-diastolic volume ratio were significantly higher in the HTN group compared with controls, consistent with concentric LV remodeling. Ell and Ecc were significantly decreased in amplitude with altered directional vector in HTN compared with controls. However, the amplitude of E3 was similar in the 2 groups. Torsion and twist were significantly higher in HTN, which was mainly due to increase in apical rotation. The HTN group demonstrated significantly increased LV wall thickening compared with controls that resulted in greater LVEF in the HTN group compared with controls (70% vs. 65%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In compensated LV remodeling secondary to HTN, there is increased LV wall thickening with preserved E3 and increased torsion compared with normal controls. This, therefore, contributes to supranormal LVEF in HTN despite depressed longitudinal and circumferential strains.
Authors: M Stuber; M B Scheidegger; S E Fischer; E Nagel; F Steinemann; O M Hess; P Boesiger Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-07-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jing Ping Sun; Zoran B Popović; Neil L Greenberg; Xiao-Fang Xu; Craig R Asher; William J Stewart; James D Thomas Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Iris K Rüssel; Marco J W Götte; Jean G Bronzwaer; Paul Knaapen; Walter J Paulus; Albert C van Rossum Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-05
Authors: Thomas H Marwick; Rodel L Leano; Joseph Brown; Jing-Ping Sun; Rainer Hoffmann; Peter Lysyansky; Michael Becker; James D Thomas Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-01
Authors: Robert W W Biederman; Mark Doyle; Alistair A Young; Richard B Devereux; Eduardo Kortright; Gilbert Perry; Jonathan N Bella; Suzanne Oparil; David Calhoun; Gerald M Pohost; Louis J Dell'Italia Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Susan Cheng; Verônica R S Fernandes; David A Bluemke; Robyn L McClelland; Richard A Kronmal; João A C Lima Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Arumugam Narayanan; Gerard P Aurigemma; Marcello Chinali; Jeffrey C Hill; Theo E Meyer; Dennis A Tighe Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: A Gupta; C G Schiros; K K Gaddam; I Aban; T S Denney; S G Lloyd; S Oparil; L J Dell'Italia; D A Calhoun; H Gupta Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Xiaoyan Zhang; Zhan-Qiu Liu; Dara Singh; David K Powell; Charles S Chung; Kenneth S Campbell; Jonathan F Wenk Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Jesus Peteiro; Alberto Bouzas-Mosquera; Javier Broullon; Gabriel Sanchez-Fernandez; Cayetana Barbeito; Lucia Perez-Cebey; Dolores Martinez; Jose M Vazquez-Rodriguez Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Cesare Russo; Zhezhen Jin; Shunichi Homma; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Alejandro Velasco; Mohammed Siddiqui; Eric Kreps; Pavani Kolakalapudi; Tanja Dudenbostel; Garima Arora; Eric K Judd; Sumanth D Prabhu; Steven G Lloyd; Suzanne Oparil; David A Calhoun Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 10.190