| Literature DB >> 29098524 |
Jakub Zajac1,2,3, Jonatan Eriksson4,5, Urban Alehagen4,6, Tino Ebbers4,5, Ann F Bolger4,7, Carl-Johan Carlhäll4,5,8.
Abstract
The impact of left bundle branch block (LBBB) related mechanical dyssynchrony on left ventricular (LV) diastolic function remains unclear. 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has provided reliable markers of LV dysfunction: reduced volume and kinetic energy (KE) of the portion of LV inflow which passes directly to outflow (Direct Flow) has been demonstrated in failing hearts compared to normal hearts. We sought to investigate the impact of mechanical dyssynchrony on diastolic function by comparing 4D flow in myopathic LVs with and without LBBB. CMR data were acquired at 3 T in 22 heart failure patients; 11 with LBBB and 11 without LBBB matched according to several demographic and clinical parameters. An established 4D flow analysis method was used to separate the LV end-diastolic (ED) volume into functional flow components based on the blood's timing and route through the heart cavities. While the Direct Flow volume was not different between the groups, the KE possessed at ED was lower in LBBB patients (P = 0.018). Direct Flow entering the LV during early diastolic filling possessed less KE at ED in LBBB patients compared to non-LBBB patients, whereas no intergroup difference was observed during late filling. Pre-systolic KE of LV Direct Flow was reduced in patients with LBBB compared to matched patients with normal conduction. These intriguing findings propose that 4D flow specific measures can serve as markers of LV mechanical dyssynchrony in heart failure patients, and could possibly be investigated as predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.Entities:
Keywords: 4D flow CMR; Heart failure; Left bundle branch block; Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29098524 PMCID: PMC5859696 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-017-1261-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging ISSN: 1569-5794 Impact factor: 2.357
Fig. 1The CMR protocol and approximate scan times (mean ± SD). bSSFP balanced steady-state free precession
Fig. 2Pathlines through the LV for the Direct Flow component entering during early diastolic filling (E, top panels) and late diastolic filling (A, bottom panels) in a LBBB patient (left panels) and matched patient (right panels), colored according to speed. LA left atrium, LV left ventricle
Demographic and clinical parameters
| LBBB group | Non-LBBB group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 61 ± 14 | 58 ± 16 | 0.676 |
| Gender (female:male) | 2:9 | 2:9 | – |
| Height (cm) | 173 ± 9 | 172 ± 7 | 0.763 |
| Weight (kg) | 88 ± 20 | 85 ± 11 | 0.688 |
| BSA (m2) | 2.0 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.2 | 0.728 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 71 ± 13 | 68 ± 9 | 0.595 |
| BP systolic (mmHg) | 135 ± 15 | 132 ± 21 | 0.733 |
| BP diastolic (mmHg) | 76 ± 6 | 82 ± 17 | 0.357 |
| Etiology (ICM:NICM) | 4:7 | 4:7 | – |
| NYHA classification | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.401 |
| QRS duration (ms) | 160 ± 20 | 106 ± 9 | < 0.001 |
| AV block I (number of patients) | 1 | 1 | – |
| LV diastolic function according to echo Doppler indices | |||
| Normal | 6 | 6 | – |
| Relaxation abnormality | 4 | 4 | – |
| Pseudonormal filling | 1 | 1 | – |
| Restrictive filling | 0 | 0 | – |
| MRI data | |||
| LVEF (%) | 34 ± 9 | 37 ± 9 | 0.550 |
| LVEDV (ml) | 261 ± 90 | 235 ± 72 | 0.462 |
| LVEDV-index (ml/m2) | 129 ± 48 | 116 ± 32 | 0.455 |
| LVESV (ml) | 177 ± 82 | 154 ± 69 | 0.490 |
| Medication (number of patients) | |||
| Beta-blocker | 11 | 8 | – |
| ACE-I or ARB | 11 | 9 | – |
| Calcium channel blocker | 2 | 0 | – |
| Nitrate (long lasting) | 0 | 1 | – |
| Antithrombotic/anticoagulant | 6 | 8 | – |
| Statin | 6 | 7 | – |
| Diuretics | 6 | 4 | – |
Mean ± SD, except for NYHA classification: median (range). ACE-I angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, AV atrioventricular, BP blood pressure, bpm beats per minute, BSA body surface area, NICM nonischemic cardiomyopathy, EDV end-diastolic volume, ESV end-systolic volume, EF ejection fraction, ICM ischemic cardiomyopathy, LV left ventricle, NYHA New York Heart Association. The echo Doppler indices for LV diastolic function was applied according to standard recommendations [29]
Fig. 3Kinetic energy (mJ) over diastole (white area; mean ± SD) and systole (grey areas; mean) for Direct Flow (light and dark blue; top panels) and Retained Inflow (light and dark red; bottom panels) in LBBB-patients (left panels) and matched patients (right panels), colored according to diastolic phase: early diastolic inflow in light color (dotted line) and late diastolic phase in dark color (solid line). Note the larger KE at end-diastole for the early diastolic Direct Flow in non-LBBB patients compared to that of LBBB patients. KE kinetic energy, mJ millijoule
4D flow CMR data in patients with and without LBBB
| LBBB group | Non-LBBB group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume (ml) | |||
| Direct Flow | 18.9 ± 10.5 | 26.2 ± 12.4 | 0.148 |
| Direct Flow E | 9.0 ± 5.6 | 14.4 ± 9.0 | 0.094 |
| Direct Flow A | 10.4 ± 4.8 | 12.5 ± 5.8 | 0.416 |
| Retained Inflow | 53.9 ± 15.8 | 49.2 ± 15.9 | 0.498 |
| Retained Inflow E | 24.1 ± 9.7 | 23.3 ± 11.2 | 0.882 |
| Retained Inflow A | 33.1 ± 8.1 | 27.8 ± 8.8 | 0.208 |
| Delayed Ejection Flow | 48.9 ± 15.3 | 46.5 ± 11.5 | 0.675 |
| Residual Volume | 119.7 ± 73.7 | 99.0 ± 62.8 | 0.478 |
| KE/volume at ED (µJ/ml) | |||
| Direct Flow | 7.2 ± 3.3 | 12.0 ± 4.3 | 0.008 |
| Direct Flow E | 8.7 ± 5.2 | 15.3 ± 5.5 | 0.017 |
| Direct Flow A | 6.1 ± 2.8 | 9.0 ± 4.6 | 0.116 |
| Retained Inflow | 7.1 ± 1.4 | 10.0 ± 3.5 | 0.018 |
| Retained Inflow E | 5.5 ± 0.8 | 8.3 ± 3.4 | 0.030 |
| Retained Inflow A | 8.5 ± 1.6 | 11.6 ± 4.5 | 0.075 |
| Delayed Ejection Flow | 10.1 ± 5.1 | 13.6 ± 5.0 | 0.125 |
| Residual Volume | 4.3 ± 0.7 | 5.0 ± 2.6 | 0.847 |
Mean ± SD. ED end-diastole, KE kinetic energy
Fig. 4Kinetic energy (mJ) at end-diastole for Direct Flow, Retained Inflow, Delayed Ejection Flow and Residual Volume in LBBB patients (grey) and matched patients without LBBB (white). mJ millijoule. *P = 0.018 versus Direct Flow in patients without LBBB
Fig. 5Kinetic energy (mJ) at end-diastole for Direct Flow E, Direct Flow A, Retained Inflow E and Retained Inflow A in LBBB patients (grey) and matched patients without LBBB (white). mJ millijoule. *P = 0.043 versus Direct Flow E in patients without LBBB
Regression analysis of Direct Flow parameters versus QRS-duration
| R2 value | P value | |
|---|---|---|
| Volume (ml) | ||
| Direct Flow | 0.089 | 0.178 |
| Direct Flow E | 0.190 | 0.070 |
| Direct Flow A | 0.034 | 0.467 |
| KE at ED (µJ) | ||
| Direct Flow | 0.234 | 0.022 |
| Direct Flow E | 0.249 | 0.035 |
| Direct Flow A | 0.110 | 0.178 |
| KE/volume at ED (µJ/ml) | ||
| Direct Flow | 0.329 | 0.005 |
| Direct Flow E | 0.317 | 0.015 |
| Direct Flow A | 0.187 | 0.073 |
ED end-diastole, KE kinetic energy