| Literature DB >> 26846306 |
Lian-Yu Lin1, Cho-Kai Wu1, Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang1, Yi-Chih Wang1, Mao-Yuan Marine Su2, Ling-Ping Lai1, Juey-Jen Hwang1, Fu-Tien Chiang1, Wen-Yih Issac Tseng2,3, Jiunn-Lee Lin1.
Abstract
Left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony is associated with poor prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF). The mechanisms leading to LV dyssynchrony are not fully elucidated. This study evaluates whether myocardium regional variation in interstitial fibrosis is associated with LV dyssynchrony. Forty-two patients with systolic heart failure (SHF), 76 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and 20 patients without HF received cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study. LV was divided into 18 segments by short-axis view. In each segment, regional extracellular volume fraction (ECV) and the time taken to reach minimum regional volume (Tmv) were derived. Intra-LV dyssynchrony were represented by maximum difference (Dysyn_max) and standard deviation (Dysyn_sd) of all Tmv. The results showed that among the covariates, only age (1.87, 95% CI: 0.61-3.13, p = 0.004) and ECV (3.77, 95% CI: 2.72-4.81, p < 0.001) were positively associated with Tmv. The results remained robust in certain subgroups. In conclusion, we demonstrated that LV myocardium regional variation in interstitial fibrosis is closely related to LV intra-ventricular dyssynchrony irrespective of the LV global function. These data might help explain the pathophysiology of LV dyssynchrony and it's underlying mechanisms leading to poor prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26846306 PMCID: PMC4742892 DOI: 10.1038/srep20711
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Basic demographics of the studied subjects.
| Age, year | 64.5 (58.5~73.3) | 67.5 (60.0~75.0) | 64.5 (60~77) |
| Gender (male)% | 78.6*† | 51.3 | 30.0 |
| BSA, m2 | 1.70 (1.62~1.82) | 1.72 (1.59~1.85) | 1.66 (1.57~1.79) |
| QRS ≧ 120 ms, % | 28.6*† | 11.8 | 0.0 |
| HTN, % | 35.7*† | 75.0 | 80.0 |
| DM, % | 26.2 | 31.6 | 20.0 |
| Dyslipidemia, % | 45.2 | 47.4 | 60.0 |
| CKD, % | 9.5 | 5.3 | 5.0 |
| Stroke, % | 2.4 | 2.6 | 5.0 |
| MI, % | 40.5*† | 18.4† | 0 |
| PAOD, % | 4.8 | 3.9 | 5.0 |
| CAD, % | 47.6† | 50.0† | 20.0 |
| Dilated CMP, % | 14.3*† | 1.3 | 0.0 |
Abbreviations: SHF, systolic heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; non-HF, patients without heart failure; BSA, body surface area; HTN, hypertension; DM, diabetes mellitus; CKD, chronic kidney disease; MI, myocardial infarction; PAOD, peripheral arterial occlusive disease; CAD, coronary artery disease; HF: heart failure, CMP, cardiomyopathy
*p < 0.05 compared with HFpEF.
†p < 0.05 compared with the non-HF group.
LV function and mass for patients with/without heart failure.
| LGE, % | 69.0%*† | 34.2%† | 0.0% |
| EDV, ml | 173.6 (134.2~226.1)*† | 92.0 (72.2~115.0) | 87.9 (68.9~102.6) |
| ESV, ml | 113.3 (85.0~149.8)*† | 20.3 (13.6~38.6) | 17.8 (10.5~26.4) |
| EDVi, ml/m2 | 104.0 (73.5~128.9)*† | 52.9 (43.9~65.2) | 48.5 (42.9~60.3) |
| ESVi, ml/m2 | 70.9 (45.3~90.1)*† | 12.2 (8.0~24.0) | 10.1 (6.9~14.5) |
| EF, % | 34.3 (26.6~40.4)*† | 77.6 (62.7~82.0) | 79.8 (73.9~83.9) |
| LVM, gm | 150.0 (126.8~182.6)*† | 118.5 (91.6~150.8)† | 90.0 (75.7~107.8) |
| LVMi, gm/m2 | 90.9 (73.7~101.7)*† | 66.8 (56.5~84.5)† | 54.5 (49.4~59.7) |
| Mean ECV, % | 35.5 (30.2~37.7)*† | 29.6 (26.7~32.6)† | 28.0 (25.6~29.3) |
| Dyssyn_max, ms | 400.0 (285.9~509.2)*† | 185.6 (160.0~239.7) | 175.0 (151.2~206.7) |
| Dyssyn_sd, ms | 112.9 (78.1~141.4)*† | 55.7 (43.5~74.6)† | 48.4 (44.3~54.5) |
Abbreviations: SHF, systolic heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; non-HF, patients without heart failure; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; EDV, end-diastolic volume; ESV, end-systolic volume; EDVi, end-diastolic volume index; ESVi, end-systolic volume index; EF, ejection fraction; LVM, left ventricular mass; LVMi, left ventricular mass index; ECV, extracellular volume fraction; Dysyn_max, maximum difference of time taken to reach minimum regional volume of all myocardial segments. Dysyn_sd, standard deviation of time taken to reach minimum regional volume of all myocardial segments.
*p < 0.05 compared with HFpEF.
†p < 0.05 compared with the non-HF group.
Mixed model analysis by using time taken to reach minimum regional volume as dependent variable.
| Age | 1.87 (0.61~3.13) | 0.004 | 1.82 (0.53~3.11) | 0.006 | 1.26 (0.32~2.21) | 0.009 |
| Sex (M vs. F) | 8.07 (−21.41~37.58) | 0.588 | 2.07 (−25.43~29.57) | 0.881 | −2.51 (−25.65~20.64) | 0.830 |
| LGE | 6.02 (−67.82~79.87) | 0.873 | N/A | N/A | 5.55 (−59.14~70.25) | 0.866 |
| QRS >120 ms | 18.70 (−17.84~55.25) | 0.313 | 9.98 (−31.36~51.32) | 0.632 | N/A | N/A |
| Diabetes mellitus | −15.17 (−42.91~12.56) | 0.281 | 6.51 (−20.51~33.54) | 0.632 | −4.03 (−25.26~17.21) | 0.708 |
| Hypertension | 15.61 (−14.71~45.92) | 0.310 | −10.15 (−44.38~24.09) | 0.556 | −3.59 (−28.27~21.09) | 0.774 |
| CAD | 11.32 (−16.81~39.45) | 0.427 | 3.84 (−24.57~32.24) | 0.788 | −6.91 (−29.11~15.29) | 0.538 |
| LV mass index | 0.07 (−0.61~0.47) | 0.793 | 0.45 (−0.12~1.02) | 0.117 | 0.03 (−0.47~0.41) | 0.888 |
| Group | ||||||
| SHF vs. Control | 4.00 (−46.83~54.82) | 0.876 | 40.89 (−13.28~95.06) | 0.137 | 14.02 (−24.32~52.35) | 0.470 |
| HFpEF vs. Control | 18.55 (−20.60~59.69) | 0.369 | 18.95 (−11.16~49.06) | 0.213 | 11.02 (−16.79~38.83) | 0.433 |
| ECV | 3.77 (2.72~4.81) | <0.001 | 3.56 (1.75~5.37) | <0.001 | 3.76 (2.64~4.89) | <0.001 |
| LGE x ECV | 8.45 (−219.62~236.53) | 0.942 | N/A | 7.51 (−205.69~220.71) | 0.945 | |
Abbreviations: LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; CAD, coronary artery disease; SHF, systolic heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; ECV, extracellular volume.
Figure 1Scatterplot of extracellular volume fraction (ECV) and time taken to reach minimum regional volume (Tmv) of each segment in all patients (Fig. 1A), patients without late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (Fig. 1B) and patients with QRS <120 ms (Fig. 1C).
The black line is a regression line indicates the fixed effect of ECV on Tmv.