| Literature DB >> 26099810 |
Andrew D M Grant1, Kazuaki Negishi2, Tomoko Negishi3, Patrick Collier4, Samir R Kapadia5, James D Thomas6, Thomas H Marwick7, Brian P Griffin8, Zoran B Popović9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While echocardiographic grading of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is used every day, the relationship between echocardiographic DD grade and hemodynamic abnormalities is uncertain.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26099810 PMCID: PMC4477506 DOI: 10.1186/s12947-015-0023-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
Fig. 1Implementation of guideline recommendations for diastolic function grading modified from reference 2. Abbreviations: DT = deceleration time; A = duration of atrial wave on mitral inflow; Ar = duration of pulmonary vein flow A wave reversal; Av E/e’: ratio between peak early velocity of mitral inflow and the average of early septal and early lateral mitral annulus peak velocities; E/A: ratio between peak velocities of early and late (atrial) waves seen on of mitral inflow; Val Δ E/A = change with Valsalva of E/A ratio
Fig. 2Flow chart of patient selection based on imaging and clinical criteria
Fig. 3Number of patients with each diastolic function grade according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)
Patient Demographics, echocardiographic parameters and Invasive Hemodynamics
| Normal | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 55 | 132 | 156 | 117 | - |
| Age | 51.4 ± 13.1 | 66.0 ± 12.0 | 62.7 ± 11.5 | 64.8 ± 14.4 | <0.001 |
| Male Gender | 35/55 (63.6 %) | 85/132 (64.4 %) | 95/156 (60.9 %) | 66/117 (56.4 %) | 0.54 |
| White Race | 42/53 (79.2 %) | 105/130 (80.8 %) | 122/153 (79.7 %) | 89/115 (77.4 %) | 0.93 |
| Cath indication | <0.001 | ||||
| CAD | 45 (81.8 %) | 62 (47.0 %) | 103 (66.0 %) | 37 (31.6%) | |
| Aortic stenosis | 0 (0.0 %) | 21 (15.9 %) | 12 (7.7 %) | 20 (17.1 %) | |
| LV dysfunction | 6 (10.9 %) | 28 (21.2 %) | 26 (16.7 %) | 38 (32.5%) | |
| LV hypertrophy | 3 (5.5 %) | 21 (15.9 %) | 13 (8.3 %) | 18 (15.4%) | |
| Other | 1 (1.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (1.3 %) | 4 (3.4 %) | |
| BMI | 28.4 (23.1-32.3) | 28.8 (25.2-31.2) | 27.3 (24.6-31.2) | 28.9 (25.3-32.9) | 0.39 |
| BNP | 34 (18-117) | 77 (30-180) | 108 (29-298) | 210 (83-556) | <0.001 |
| LVEF | 58 % (53-64 %) | 60 % (50-66 %) | 57 % (51-63 %) | 51 % (38-60 %) | <0.001 |
| LA volume index | 23.7 (18.4-30.7) | 26.1 (18.7-34.2) | 26.5 (21.2-36.2) | 35.4 (25.3-47.4) | <0.001 |
| E/A ratio | 1.5 (1.2-1.8) | 0.70 (0.61-0.79) | 1.0 (0.8-1.2) | 1.2 (0.9-2.0) | 0.011 |
| E/e’ ratio | 7.0 (6.3-8.8) | 8.3 (6.8-11.5) | 10.4 (9.2-11.9) | 15.7 (12.7-20.5) | <0.001 |
| DT | 182 (161-209) | 250 (216-296) | 190 (174-220) | 160 (145-207) | <0.001 |
| Systolic BP | 127 (119-146) | 139 (126-159) | 140 (124-156) | 138 (119-156) | 0.012 |
| Tau | 43.8 (35.7-53.5) | 51.3 (41.5-60.2) | 44.8 (37.6-54.4) | 47.5 (38.9-59.6) | 0.003 |
| LVEDP | 16.0 (10.0-20.0) | 14.0 (11.0-18.0) | 14.0 (10.0-18.0) | 18.0 (12.0-24.0) | <0.001 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation where normally distributed or median (25th to 75th percentile). P values are for ANOVA across diastolic function grades
BMI body mass index, BNP B-type natriuretic peptide, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LA left atrium, DT deceleration time, IVRT isovolumic relaxation time, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, LVEDP left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, CAD coronary artery disease
Fig. 4a. Time constant of isovolumic pressure decay (Tau) in patients stratified according to diastolic function grade. Data are shown as median with error bars representing 25 % and 75 % percentile. Patients with normal diastolic function had better relaxation (lower tau) than patients with Grade 1 diastolic dysfunction, but there were no differences between normal diastolic function and grade 2 or 3 diastolic dysfunction. b. Time constant of isovolumic pressure decay (Tau) in patients stratified according to diastolic function grade and presence or absence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (EF < 50 %). Data are shown as median with error bars representing 25 % and 75 % percentile. *: p < 0.05 for comparison between patients with EF ≥ 50 % and Grade 1 diastolic dysfunction versus all other diastolic function subgroups with EF ≥ 50 %
Fig. 5a. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) in patients stratified according to diastolic function grade. Data are shown as median with error bars representing 25 % and 75 % percentile. Patients with normal diastolic function had lower LVEDP than patients with Grade 3 diastolic dysfunction, but there were no differences between patients with normal diastolic function and grade 1 of 2 diastolic dysfunction. b. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) in patients stratified according to diastolic function grade and presence or absence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (EF < 50 %). Data are shown as median with error bars representing 25 % and 75% percentile. *: p < 0.001 for the difference between grade 3 and grade 1 in patients with LVEF < 50 %; †: p = 0.02 for the difference between grade 3 and grade 2 In patients with LVEF ≥ 50 %. All other p values for post-hoc comparisons are >0.05
Fig. 6a. End-diastolic volume index at 20 mmHg (EDVi20) in patients stratified according to diastolic function grade. Data are shown as median with error bars representing 25 % and 75 % percentile. Patients with normal diastolic function had lower EDVi20 than patients with Grade 3 diastolic dysfunction, but there were no differences between patients with normal diastolic function and grade 1 of 2 diastolic dysfunction. b. End-diastolic volume index at 20 mmHg (EDVi20) in patients stratified according to diastolic function grade and presence or absence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (EF < 50 %). Data are shown as median with error bars representing 25 % and 75 % percentile. No significant differences are seen between groups