| Literature DB >> 28785690 |
Chi Chen1, Yung-Tzi Chen2, Kuang-Te Wang2, Shou-Chuan Shih3, Chuan-Chuan Liu4, Jen-Yuan Kuo1,5, Charles Jia-Yin Hou1,5, Yih-Jer Wu1,5, Chung-Lieh Hung1,5, Hung-I Yeh1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced age is associated with left ventricular (LV) remodeling and impaired diastole. The association among aging, mitral leaflet closure (EF slope), cardiac structures, and diastolic indices in an asymptomatic Taiwanese population is largely unknown.Entities:
Keywords: Age; Diastology; Echo; Gender; Mitral EF slope; NT-proBNP
Year: 2015 PMID: 28785690 PMCID: PMC5497255 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2015.06.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc ISSN: 2352-9067
Fig. 1Illustration of individual landmarks (A, C, D, E and F points) of a transthoracic parasternal long-axis M-mode tracing (left panel) and a representative EF slope from a manual tracing (right panel).
Baseline characteristics of study participants.
| Women (N = 3060) | Men (N = 4953) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline characteristics | |||
| Age, y | 51.1 ± 12.0 | 49.5 ± 11.3 | < 0.0001 |
| Height, cm | 157 ± 5.7 | 170 ± 6.2 | < 0.0001 |
| Weight, kg | 56.8 ± 9.3 | 72.0 ± 11.1 | < 0.0001 |
| Body mass index | 23.2 ± 3.7 | 25.0 ± 3.4 | < 0.0001 |
| SBP, mm Hg | 120 ± 19.1 | 124.8 ± 16.3 | < 0.0001 |
| DBP, mm Hg | 72.5 ± 10.6 | 77.7 ± 10.6 | < 0.0001 |
| MBP, mm Hg | 88.4 ± 12.5 | 93.4 ± 11.6 | < 0.0001 |
| Heart rate, 1/min | 74.1 ± 9.6 | 74.3 ± 10.6 | 0.5222 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 77.0 ± 9.8 | 86.4 ± 8.9 | < 0.0001 |
| Biochemical data | |||
| Fasting glucose, mg/dL | 98.3 ± 23.8 | 102.7 ± 24.6 | < 0.0001 |
| Cholesterol, mg/dL | 200.7 ± 38 | 198.9 ± 36 | 0.0375 |
| HDL, mg/dL | 62 ± 15.7 | 48.8 ± 12.1 | < 0.0001 |
| eGFR, mg/dL | 92.6 ± 20.1 | 85.7 ± 15.7 | < 0.0001 |
| Medical history, % | |||
| Hypertension | 586 (19.2%) | 956 (19.3%) | 0.891 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 75 (2.5%) | 125 (2.5%) | 0.897 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 206 (6.7%) | 322 (6.5%) | 0.72 |
| Cardiovascular disease | 282 (9.2%) | 369 (7.5%) | 0.006 |
DBP: diastolic blood pressure, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate, HDL: high density lipoprotein, MBP: mean blood pressure and SBP: systolic blood pressure.
Reference value for EF slope in all study participants (n = 8013) and healthy participants in the current study (n = 5839).
| Age groups | All (n = 8013) | Men | Women | p value | Healthy (n = 5893) | Men | Women | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ 30 (years) | Mean ± SD | 111 ± 26.6 | 101 ± 23.9 | < 0.001 | Mean ± SD | 111 ± 27 | 100.5 ± 24.4 | < 0.001 |
| N | 247 | 133 | N | 223 | 120 | |||
| 31–40 (years) | Mean ± SD | 103.7 ± 25.6 | 99.5 ± 23.9 | 0.004 | Mean ± SD | 104.9 ± 25 | 99.5 ± 23.6 | 0.003 |
| N | 984 | 436 | N | 867 | 394 | |||
| 41–50 (years) | Mean ± SD | 96.1 ± 25.9 | 93.2 ± 23.5 | 0.006 | Mean ± SD | 97.4 ± 25.9 | 93.2 ± 23.4 | 0.02 |
| N | 1677 | 892 | N | 1320 | 757 | |||
| 51–60 (years) | Mean ± SD | 85.1 ± 27.1 | 83.2 ± 22.8 | 0.0771 | Mean ± SD | 87.2 ± 27.2 | 83.2 ± 22.3 | 0.203 |
| N | 1377 | 948 | N | 904 | 650 | |||
| 61–70 (years) | Mean ± SD | 73.7 ± 25.8 | 71.3 ± 25.1 | 0.155 | Mean ± SD | 75.6 ± 24.9 | 71.3 ± 24.9 | 0.895 |
| N | 478 | 469 | N | 231 | 235 | |||
| ≥ 71 (years) | Mean ± SD | 64.8 ± 23 | 59 ± 22.4 | 0.0147 | Mean ± SD | 71 ± 24 | 59 ± 20.2 | 0.003 |
| N | 190 | 182 | N | 73 | 65 | |||
| p for trend (across age groups) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||||
| All subjects | Mean ± SD | 91.9 ± 28.4 | 86 ± 26.1 | Mean ± SD | 95.6 ± 27.7 | 90.3 ± 25 | < 0.001 | |
| N | 4953 | 3060 | n | 3618 | 2221 |
SD: standard deviation.
Fig. 2Association between age, EF slope, and several cardiac structural parameters. Unfavorable cardiac remodeling, including greater wall thickness and larger mass, are all associated with reduced EF slope, with men demonstrating a positive linear trend between higher EF slope and greater LV internal diameter.
Association between age, load status and EF slope measurement in uni- and multi-variate models for all (n = 8013) and healthy participants (n = 5893).
| EF slope (mm/s) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female (n = 3060) | Male (n = 4953) | All study participants (n = 8013) | ||||
| Beta | p | Beta | p | Beta | p | |
| Age (per decade) | − 9.63 | < 0.001 | − 10.19 | < 0.001 | − 10.11 | < 0.001 |
| Model 1 | ||||||
| Age (per decade) | − 8.19 | < 0.001 | − 9.54 | < 0.001 | − 9.32 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (per 10 mm Hg) | − 1.91 | < 0.001 | − 2.04 | < 0.001 | − 1.69 | < 0.001 |
| Model 2 | ||||||
| Age (per decade) | − 8.03 | < 0.001 | − 9.68 | < 0.001 | − 9.37 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (per 10 mm Hg) | − 1.6 | < 0.001 | − 1.71 | < 0.001 | − 1.42 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (per 5 kg/m2) | − 2.56 | < 0.001 | − 3.25 | < 0.001 | − 2.01 | < 0.001 |
| Model 3 | ||||||
| Age (per decade) | − 7.51 | < 0.001 | − 8.95 | < 0.001 | − 8.9 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (per 10 mm Hg) | − 0.98 | 0.001 | − 1.45 | < 0.001 | − 1.04 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (per 5 kg/m2) | − 1.45 | 0.036 | − 2.36 | < 0.001 | − 1.57 | 0.001 |
| Female (n = 2221) | Male (n = 3618) | Healthy participants (n = 5893) | ||||
| Beta | p | Beta | p | Beta | p | |
| Age (per decade) | − 8.4 | < 0.001 | − 9.47 | < 0.001 | − 9.17 | < 0.001 |
| Female (n = 3060) | Male (n = 4953) | Healthy participants (n = 5893) | ||||
| Beta | p | Beta | p | Beta | p | |
| Model 1 | ||||||
| Age (per decade) | − 7.66 | < 0.001 | − 9.13 | < 0.001 | − 8.82 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (per 10 mm Hg) | − 1.33 | < 0.001 | − 1.59 | < 0.001 | − 1.1 | < 0.001 |
| Model 2 | ||||||
| Age (per decade) | − 7.39 | < 0.001 | − 9.26 | < 0.001 | − 8.86 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (per 10 mm Hg) | − 0.9 | 0.009 | − 1.28 | < 0.001 | − 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (per 5 kg/m2) | − 3.65 | < 0.001 | − 2.89 | < 0.001 | − 2.08 | < 0.001 |
| Model 3 | ||||||
| Age (per decade) | − 6.99 | < 0.001 | − 8.68 | < 0.001 | − 8.65 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (per 10 mm Hg) | − 0.89 | 0.016 | − 1.46 | < 0.001 | − 0.91 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (per 5 kg/m2) | − 2.94 | 0.001 | − 2.28 | 0.002 | − 2.03 | < 0.001 |
Beta: beta co-efficiency, BMI: body mass index, SBP: systolic blood pressure.
Model 3: CV indicates clinical variables including fasting glucose, cholesterol, HDL, eGFR, medical history of hypertension, diabetes, CVD, and hyperlipidemia.
Model 3: CV indicates clinical variables including fasting glucose, cholesterol, HDL, and eGFR.
Association between EF slope and various cardiac structural/functional indices.
| (Per 1 SU increase) | All study participants (n = 8013) | (Per 1 SU increase) | Healthy participants (n = 5893) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | S.E. | p value | Beta | S.E. | p value | ||
| IVS | − 0.17 | 0.29 | < 0.001 | IVS | − 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.29 |
| LVPW | − 0.14 | 0.29 | < 0.001 | LVPW | − 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.29 |
| LVIDd | 0.14 | 0.09 | < 0.001 | LVIDd | 0.18 | 0.1 | 0.09 |
| LVIDs | 0.11 | 0.1 | < 0.001 | LVIDs | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.1 |
| FS | − 0.05 | 0.08 | < 0.001 | FS | − 0.07 | 0.1 | 0.08 |
| LV mass | − 0.04 | 0.01 | < 0.001 | LV mass | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.111 |
| LV mass index | − 0.11 | 0.02 | < 0.001 | LV mass index | − 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.011 |
| LA diameter | − 0.12 | 0.07 | < 0.001 | LA diameter | − 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.001 |
| DT | − 0.29 | 0.01 | < 0.001 | DT | − 0.15 | 0.01 | < 0.001 |
| IVRT | − 0.2 | 0.03 | < 0.001 | IVRT | − 0.16 | 0.03 | < 0.001 |
| E | 0.12 | 0.03 | < 0.001 | E | 0.11 | 0.03 | < 0.001 |
| A | − 0.42 | 0.02 | < 0.001 | A | − 0.37 | 0.02 | < 0.001 |
| E/A | 0.41 | 0.9 | < 0.001 | E/A | 0.36 | 1.05 | < 0.001 |
| TDI E′ | 0.46 | 0.15 | < 0.001 | TDI E′ | 0.4 | 0.17 | < 0.001 |
| E/E′ | − 0.32 | 0.16 | < 0.001 | E/E′ | − 0.25 | 0.22 | < 0.001 |
A: late mitral inflow velocity, DT: mitral inflow deceleration time, E: early mitral inflow velocity, E/A: mitral inflow E/A ratio, E/E: early mitral inflow E to mitral annulus relaxation velocity E′ ratio, FS: fractional shortening, IVRT: iso-volumic relaxation time, IVS: inter-ventricular septal wall thickness, LA: left atrial/atrium, LV: left ventricular/ventricle, LVIDd/LVIDs: diastolic/systolic left ventricular internal diameter, LVPW: left ventricular posterior wall, SU: standardized unit and TDI E′: mitral annulus relaxation velocity E′.
Supplemental Fig. 1
Fig. 3Linear correlation between EF slope and NT-proBNP level (left panel). Significant graded reduction of EF slope based on categorized LV filling pressure defined by E/E′ (98.9 ± 26.6 vs 82.8 ± 26 vs 63.2 ± 26.2 mm/s, respectively).
Fig. 4Panels A and B show AUROC for predicting abnormally low E′ (< 8 cm/s) and high E/E′ (> 15) by EF slope. The cut-off values for EF slope in identifying abnormal E′ and E/E′ are 87.5 and 79.5 cm/s2, with sensitivity/specificity 70%/67.9% and 72.2%/70.8%, respectively.