| Literature DB >> 25113389 |
Laura Stefani1, Alessio De Luca, Loira Toncelli, Gianni Pedrizzetti, Giorgio Galanti.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of cardiac contraction could benefit from a connection with the underlying helical structure of cardiac fibers in athletes either completely healthy or with minor common cardiopathies like Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV). This study aims to exploit the potential role of 3D strain to improve the physiological understanding of LV function and modification due to physical activity as a comparative model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25113389 PMCID: PMC4138416 DOI: 10.1186/1476-7120-12-33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
General and echocardiographic parameters of BAV, normals and TAV athletes
| Age | [years] | 19.1 ± 3.6 | 20.1 ± 3.5 | 21.4 ± 7.2 |
| HR | [bpm] | 70 ± 6.3 | 70.2 ± 11 | 66.1 ± 7.9 |
| BMI | [Kg/m2 ] | 21.7 ± 2.4 | 22.7 ± 2.5 | 22.6 ± 3.4 |
| SBP | [mmHg] | 114 ± 5.1 | 116.2 ± 6.5 | 115.8 ± 7.5 |
| DBP | [mmHg] | 74.7 ± 5.2*x | 70 ± 4.1 | 69 ± 8 |
| CMI | [g/m2] | 103.3 ± 9.1 | 108.3 ± 17.1 | 113.7 ± 21.6 |
| Ao Root | [mm] | 29.6 ± 2.3♣ | 30.3 ± 2.2 | 32.9 ± 5.8 |
| LA | [mm] | 33.4 ± 2.4 | 33.1 ± 2.1 | 32.9 ± 3.1 |
| IVS | [mm] | 9.1 ± 0.6 | 9.3 ± 1 | 9.7 ± 1.3 |
| PW | [mm] | 9.1 ± 0.6 | 9.2 ± 0.9 | 9.4 ± 1.3 |
| LVEDd | [mm] | 50.3 ± 2.1 | 50.9 ± 3.7 | 51.2 ± 4.7 |
| LVESd | [mm] | 32 ± 2.6 | 32.1 ± 3.1 | 33 ± 3.6 |
| EF | [%] | 66.3 ± 4+§ | 66.3 ± 4 | 63.7 ± 2.6 |
| E peak | [cm/s] | 87 ± 16.5‡# | 90.1 ± 18.3 | 75.9 ± 14.3 |
| A peak | [cm/s] | 53.5 ± 17.2 | 47.7 ± 11.9 | 46.1 ± 13.5 |
| DT | [ms] | 169.9 ± 19.9† | 178.1 ± 28.3 | 201.2 ± 13.5 |
| IVRT | [ms] | 73.1 ± 8.1 | 76.6 ± 10.2 | 74 ± 13.5 |
Legend: HR: heart rate; BMI: body mass index; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; Ao Root: aorta; LA: left atrium; PW: Posterior wall; LVESd: left ventricle end systolic diameter; LVEDd; left ventricle end diastolic diameter; EF: ejection fraction; DT: deceleration time; IVRT: isovolumetric relaxation time; Controls vs. TAV: *p = .014. Controls vs. BAV: xp = .023, ♣p = .044, +p = .026, ‡p = .040,†p = .006. TAV vs. BAV: §p = .028, #p = .018.
Global end-systolic 3D strain values
| GLS [%] | -16.2 ± 2.2x | -18.3 ± 2.5 | -17.0 ± 4.6 | p = 0.32 |
| GCS [%] | -19.3 ± 3.8* | -21.8 ± 3.9 | -25.5 ± 8.3 | p = 0.02 |
| GPS [%] | -28.4 ± 3.2 | -27.2 ± 3.2 | -30.0 ± 7.2 | p = 0.34 |
| GSS [%] | -6.6 ± 3.0†‡ | -12.8 ± 2.8 | -12.1 ± 6.3 | p = 0.0015 |
Legend: GLS = end-systolic Global Longitudinal Strain; GCS = end-systolic Global Circumferential Strain; GPS = end-systolic Global Principal Strain; GSS = end-systolic Global Secondary Strain. Controls vs. TAV: xp = 0.036; †p < 0.001. Controls vs. BAV: *p = .014; ‡p = .005.
Figure 1Time course of the different global 3D strain components (from top to bottom, longitudinal, circumferential, principal and secondary) for the 3 groups reported as mean (black line) plus/minus standard deviation (shaded gray). Longitudinal, circumferential and principal global strain curves are very similar in the three groups, with a noticeable small increase of circumferential strain in athletes. The secondary strain is markedly different, in particular the pre-stretch at the onset of contraction is reduced resulting in a higher end-systolic values.
End-systolic strain parameters at different LV levels
| LS [%] | Apex | -17.6 ± 3.0x | -23.4 ± 8.3 | -20.6 ± 5.8 |
| Mid | -16.4 ± 2.1♣ | -19.3 ± 3.3 | -18.2 ± 5.1 | |
| Base | -14.9 ± 2.9 | -15.7 ± 2.7 | -14.2 ± 4.5 | |
| CS [%] | Apex | -15.8 ± 3.7§ | -19.7 ± 5.6 | -26.1 ± 10.8 |
| Mid | -20.5 ± 4.5‡ | -24.2 ± 4.5 | -28.7 ± 10.6 | |
| Base | -19.1 ± 3.8 | -20.4 ± 4.5 | -22.7 ± 6.5 | |
| PS [%] | Apex | -26.2 ± 4.1 | -29.6 ± 8.1 | -31.3 ± 9.5 |
| Mid | -28.9 ± 3.9 | -29.3 ± 3.9 | -32.7 ± 9.3 | |
| Base | -28.8 ± 3.2† | -24.6 ± 3.3 | -27.5 ± 5.9 | |
| SS [%] | Apex | -7.1 ± 2.8*# | -13.5 ± 4.2 | -15.3 ± 8.5 |
| Mid | -7.9 ± 2.9*§ | -14.2 ± 2.7 | -14.3 ± 6.8 | |
| Base | -5.2 ± 4.0*+ | -11.4 ± 3.6 | -9.4 ± 6 |
Legend: LS = end-systolic Longitudinal Strain; CS = end-systolic Circumferential Strain; PS = end-systolic Principal Strain; SS = end-systolic Secondary Strain. Controls vs. TAV: xp = .023, ♣p = .011, †p = .003, *p < .001. Controls vs. BAV: §p = .002, ‡p = .010, #p = .001, +p = .03.
Figure 2Representation of principal strain direction at end-systole computed from the deformation at the sub-endocardial level averaged from the ( ) Controls group, ( ) TAV-Athletes group, ( ) BAV-Athletes group. Strain lines are colored by their angle as by the colorbar on the bottom, to emphasize the positive angle of endocardial right-handed helical fibers (clockwise moving from base to apex) and negative angle for epicardial left-handed helix.
Inter-operator reproducibility of 3D strain calculation in a group of 5 subjects measured by two independent operators
| GLS [%] | -13.0 ± 1.9 | -13.5 ± 2.3 | 0.87 |
| GCS [%] | -18.5 ± 1.8 | -19.9 ± 1.7 | 0.46 |
| GPS [%] | -27.4 ± 1.0 | -28.1 ± 2.4 | 0.58 |
| GSS [%] | -3.6 ± 2.3 | -5.3 ± 1.7 | 0.25 |
Legend: GLS = end-systolic Global Longitudinal Strain; GCS = end-systolic Global Circumferential Strain; GPS = end-systolic Global Principal Strain; GSS = end-systolic Global Secondary Strain.