OBJECTIVE: Left atrial (LA) maximum volume (LAV(max)) is an indicator of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. However, LAV(max) is also influenced by systolic events, whereas the LA minimum volume (LAV(min)) is directly exposed to LV pressure. The authors hypothesised that LAV(min) may be a better correlate of LV diastolic function than LAV(max). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 357 participants from a community-based cohort study. METHODS: LA volumes and reservoir function, measured as total LA emptying volume (LAEV) and LA emptying fraction (LAEF), were assessed by real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. LV diastolic function was assessed by trans-mitral early (E) and late (A) Doppler velocities and mitral early diastolic velocity by tissue-Doppler (e'). LV systolic function was assessed by LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle-tracking. RESULTS: LAV(min) significantly increased with worsening diastolic dysfunction (p<0.001), whereas the increase in LAV(max) was less pronounced (p=0.07). LAEV and LAEF decreased with worsening diastolic dysfunction (both p<0.001). In linear regressions, LAV(min) and LAV(max) were significant predictors of E/e', with higher parameter estimates for LAV(min). In multivariate models, LAV(min) resulted strongly associated with E/e' (β=0.45, p<0.001), whereas LAV(max) was not (β=-0.16, p=0.08). LA reservoir function was better associated with GLS than LVEF. In multivariate analyses, GLS was significantly associated with LAV(max) (β=-0.15, p=0.002), LAEV (β=-0.37, p<0.001) and LAEF (β=-0.28, p<0.001) but not with LAV(min). CONCLUSIONS: LAV(min) is a better correlate of LV diastolic function than LAV(max). The impact of LV longitudinal systolic function on LA reservoir function might explain the weaker relation between LAV(max) and LV diastolic function.
OBJECTIVE: Left atrial (LA) maximum volume (LAV(max)) is an indicator of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. However, LAV(max) is also influenced by systolic events, whereas the LA minimum volume (LAV(min)) is directly exposed to LV pressure. The authors hypothesised that LAV(min) may be a better correlate of LV diastolic function than LAV(max). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 357 participants from a community-based cohort study. METHODS: LA volumes and reservoir function, measured as total LA emptying volume (LAEV) and LA emptying fraction (LAEF), were assessed by real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. LV diastolic function was assessed by trans-mitral early (E) and late (A) Doppler velocities and mitral early diastolic velocity by tissue-Doppler (e'). LV systolic function was assessed by LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle-tracking. RESULTS: LAV(min) significantly increased with worsening diastolic dysfunction (p<0.001), whereas the increase in LAV(max) was less pronounced (p=0.07). LAEV and LAEF decreased with worsening diastolic dysfunction (both p<0.001). In linear regressions, LAV(min) and LAV(max) were significant predictors of E/e', with higher parameter estimates for LAV(min). In multivariate models, LAV(min) resulted strongly associated with E/e' (β=0.45, p<0.001), whereas LAV(max) was not (β=-0.16, p=0.08). LA reservoir function was better associated with GLS than LVEF. In multivariate analyses, GLS was significantly associated with LAV(max) (β=-0.15, p=0.002), LAEV (β=-0.37, p<0.001) and LAEF (β=-0.28, p<0.001) but not with LAV(min). CONCLUSIONS: LAV(min) is a better correlate of LV diastolic function than LAV(max). The impact of LV longitudinal systolic function on LA reservoir function might explain the weaker relation between LAV(max) and LV diastolic function.
Authors: S R Ommen; R A Nishimura; C P Appleton; F A Miller; J K Oh; M M Redfield; A J Tajik Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-10-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jessica A Haffajee; Yoojin Lee; Alawi A Alsheikh-Ali; Jeffrey T Kuvin; Natesa G Pandian; Ayan R Patel Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-08
Authors: Cesare Russo; Zhezhen Jin; Shunichi Homma; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2010-03-07 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Stefano Caselli; Emanuele Canali; Maria Laura Foschi; Daria Santini; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Natesa G Pandian; Stefano De Castro Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2009-12-07
Authors: Cesare Russo; Zhezhen Jin; Shunichi Homma; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Cesare Russo; Rebecca T Hahn; Zhezhen Jin; Shunichi Homma; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Astrid Roeh; Tibor Schuster; Philip Jung; Jens Schneider; Martin Halle; Johannes Scherr Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mohamed F A Aly; Wessel P Brouwer; Sebastiaan A Kleijn; Albert C van Rossum; Otto Kamp Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mohammadali Habibi; Harjit Chahal; Anders Opdahl; Ola Gjesdal; Thomas M Helle-Valle; Susan R Heckbert; Robyn McClelland; Colin Wu; Steven Shea; Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-05-07
Authors: Cesare Russo; Zhezhen Jin; Fusako Sera; Edward S Lee; Shunichi Homma; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.792