Géraldine Ong1,2, Bjorn Redfors2,3, Aaron Crowley2, Husam Abdel-Qadir1, Alana Harrington4, Yangbo Liu2, Myriam Lafrenière-Roula5,6, Howard Leong-Poi1,6,7, Mark D Peterson4,6, Kim A Connelly1,6,7. 1. Department of Cardiology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Clinical Trial Center, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Keenan Research Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR), the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricle (LV) size are crucial for determining clinical prognosis and timing of valve intervention. In clinical practice, LV internal diameters obtained at end-diastole are used to assess the degree of LV dilatation. Whether quantification of LV volumes would provide more robust information as compared to LV linear dimensions is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed preoperative and postoperative transthoracic echocardiograms of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe AR. Indexed linear LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters along with indexed LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were obtained as per current guidelines. Post-AVR LV reverse remodeling, defined as ≥10% reduction in measures of LV volumes (Teichholz and Simpson's methods), was determined. Positive and negative agreement was calculated between the volume- and diameter-based LV reverse remodeling. RESULTS: Sixty-two consecutive patients were included. Nine patients (17%) without LV reverse remodeling based on Teichholz were reclassified as having LV reverse remodeling based on Simpson (positive agreement 0.846 [95% CI 0.772, 0.921], negative agreement 0.200 [95% CI -0.350, 0.435]). Left ventricle (LV) reverse remodeling assessed by the Teichholz method was underestimated by a mean of 31 mL/m2 (β = -0.65 [95% CI -1.06 to -0.24], P = .003) compared to Simpson method. CONCLUSION: Compared to the volume-based method, diameter-based LV measurement incorrectly identified LV reverse remodeling post-AVR in 17% of patients with severe AR. Left ventricle (LV) volume may be a better measure to assess LV remodeling post-AVR than LV diameter-based measurements.
BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR), the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricle (LV) size are crucial for determining clinical prognosis and timing of valve intervention. In clinical practice, LV internal diameters obtained at end-diastole are used to assess the degree of LV dilatation. Whether quantification of LV volumes would provide more robust information as compared to LV linear dimensions is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed preoperative and postoperative transthoracic echocardiograms of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe AR. Indexed linear LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters along with indexed LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were obtained as per current guidelines. Post-AVR LV reverse remodeling, defined as ≥10% reduction in measures of LV volumes (Teichholz and Simpson's methods), was determined. Positive and negative agreement was calculated between the volume- and diameter-based LV reverse remodeling. RESULTS: Sixty-two consecutive patients were included. Nine patients (17%) without LV reverse remodeling based on Teichholz were reclassified as having LV reverse remodeling based on Simpson (positive agreement 0.846 [95% CI 0.772, 0.921], negative agreement 0.200 [95% CI -0.350, 0.435]). Left ventricle (LV) reverse remodeling assessed by the Teichholz method was underestimated by a mean of 31 mL/m2 (β = -0.65 [95% CI -1.06 to -0.24], P = .003) compared to Simpson method. CONCLUSION: Compared to the volume-based method, diameter-based LV measurement incorrectly identified LV reverse remodeling post-AVR in 17% of patients with severe AR. Left ventricle (LV) volume may be a better measure to assess LV remodeling post-AVR than LV diameter-based measurements.