Carolyn L Lekavich1, Debra J Barksdale2, Jia-Rong Wu3, Virginia Neelon4, Jamie Crandell5, Eric J Velazquez6. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: carolyn.lekavich@duke.edu. 2. School of Nursing, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Biobehavioral Laboratory, School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence continues to demonstrate increasing prevalence, cost, and mortality implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but clearly defined parameters that distinguish between control subjects and HFpEF have not been established. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to detect differences in markers associated with Ventricular-arterial coupling and HFpEF when comparing matched case and control groups. METHODS: A study cohort of case (incident patients with HFpEF; n = 155) and matched control (patients with no prior heart failure; n = 155) groups was retrospectively identified. Matching criteria included race, sex, age, and date of echocardiography (within 1 year). Physiologic and echocardiographic markers were collected from previously acquired transthoracic echocardiograms. These echocardiographic images were reanalyzed, and measures of ventricular-arterial coupling were calculated. Using conditional logistic regression and controlling for covariates, models were fitted to detect differences in HFpEF markers between case and control subjects. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in markers that reflect ventricular elastance (Ees; P = .007) and left atrial diameter (LAdiam; P = .04) were detected when comparing the case and control groups. Conditional logistic regression analyses suggested a 40% higher odds of being in the case group with every 1-unit increase in Ees (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.79) and a 2.92 times higher odds of being in the case group for every 1 cm increase in LAdiam (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.064-7.994). CONCLUSIONS: Ees and LAdiam are easily measurable echocardiographic markers that may have a role in identifying and tracking the progression toward incident HFpEF without increasing cost or risk to the patient. Prospective studies are indicated to explore the use of Ees and LAdiam as predictors of impending HFpEF.
BACKGROUND: Evidence continues to demonstrate increasing prevalence, cost, and mortality implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but clearly defined parameters that distinguish between control subjects and HFpEF have not been established. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to detect differences in markers associated with Ventricular-arterial coupling and HFpEF when comparing matched case and control groups. METHODS: A study cohort of case (incident patients with HFpEF; n = 155) and matched control (patients with no prior heart failure; n = 155) groups was retrospectively identified. Matching criteria included race, sex, age, and date of echocardiography (within 1 year). Physiologic and echocardiographic markers were collected from previously acquired transthoracic echocardiograms. These echocardiographic images were reanalyzed, and measures of ventricular-arterial coupling were calculated. Using conditional logistic regression and controlling for covariates, models were fitted to detect differences in HFpEF markers between case and control subjects. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in markers that reflect ventricular elastance (Ees; P = .007) and left atrial diameter (LAdiam; P = .04) were detected when comparing the case and control groups. Conditional logistic regression analyses suggested a 40% higher odds of being in the case group with every 1-unit increase in Ees (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.79) and a 2.92 times higher odds of being in the case group for every 1 cm increase in LAdiam (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.064-7.994). CONCLUSIONS:Ees and LAdiam are easily measurable echocardiographic markers that may have a role in identifying and tracking the progression toward incident HFpEF without increasing cost or risk to the patient. Prospective studies are indicated to explore the use of Ees and LAdiam as predictors of impending HFpEF.
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Barry A Borlaug; Thomas P Olson; Carolyn S P Lam; Kelly S Flood; Amir Lerman; Bruce D Johnson; Margaret M Redfield Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Selma F Mohammed; Barry A Borlaug; Véronique L Roger; Sultan A Mirzoyev; Richard J Rodeheffer; Julio A Chirinos; Margaret M Redfield Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Barry A Borlaug; Carolyn S P Lam; Véronique L Roger; Richard J Rodeheffer; Margaret M Redfield Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Walter J Paulus; Carsten Tschöpe; John E Sanderson; Cesare Rusconi; Frank A Flachskampf; Frank E Rademakers; Paolo Marino; Otto A Smiseth; Gilles De Keulenaer; Adelino F Leite-Moreira; Attila Borbély; István Edes; Martin Louis Handoko; Stephane Heymans; Natalia Pezzali; Burkert Pieske; Kenneth Dickstein; Alan G Fraser; Dirk L Brutsaert Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-04-11 Impact factor: 29.983