| Literature DB >> 30190649 |
Bassam Hennawy1, Wael El Kilany1, Haitham Galal1, Ahmed Mamdouh1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension adversely affects left atrial (LA) size and function, effect on function may precede effect on size. Many techniques were used to assess LA function but with pitfalls.Entities:
Keywords: BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; DM, diabetes mellitus; HR, heart rate; Hypertension; LA, left atrium; LASV, LA stroke volume; LV, left ventricle; Left atrial dysfunction; Left atrium; PALS, peak atrial longitudinal strain; ROI, region of interest; STE, speckle-tracking echocardiography; Speckle tracking
Year: 2018 PMID: 30190649 PMCID: PMC6123346 DOI: 10.1016/j.ehj.2018.05.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Egypt Heart J ISSN: 1110-2608
Fig. 1LV diastolic function assessed by [A] TDI [B] Doppler Mitral inflow.
Comparison between both groups regarding demographic and clinical measures and risk factors.
| No HTN | HTN | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. = 50 | No. = 50 | |||
| Gender | Female | 25 (50.0%) | 30 (60.0%) | 0.421 |
| Male | 25 (50.0%) | 20 (40.0%) | ||
| Age | Mean ± SD | 54.06 ± 8.35 | 56.04 ± 10.72 | 0.305 |
| HR (bpm) | Mean ± SD | 77.24 ± 10.68 | 79.94 ± 10.87 | 0.213 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | Mean ± SD | 25.20 ± 2.73 | 25.96 ± 3.61 | 0.238 |
| BSA (m2) | Mean ± SD | 1.76 ± 0.09 | 1.73 ± 0.09 | 0.130 |
| DM | Negative | 40 (80.0%) | 26 (52.0%) | |
| Positive | 10 (20.0%) | 24 (48.0%) | ||
| Smoking | Negative | 29 (58.0%) | 42 (84.0%) | |
| Positive | 21 (42.0%) | 8 (16.0%) | ||
Both groups were homogenous except for DM and smoking.
Comparison between both groups regarding LV measurements.
| No HTN | HTN | Independent | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. = 50 | No. = 50 | t | p-value | ||
| LVEF (%) | Mean ± SD | 67.02 ± 5.90 | 69.50 ± 6.72 | −1.961 | 0.053 |
| Range | 55–78 | 57–80 | |||
| LV mass index (gm/m2) | Mean ± SD | 77.18 ± 11.70 | 84.50 ± 22.71 | −2.026 | |
| Range | 57–95 | 56–137 | |||
| LV diastolic dysfunction | No HTN | HTN | Chi-square test | ||
| No. = 50 | No. = 50 | X2 | p-value | ||
| I | 12 (24.0%) | 29 (58.0%) | 31.926 | ||
| II | 0 (0.0%) | 10 (20.0%) | |||
| None | 38 (76.0%) | 11 (22.0%) | |||
The LV mass index and LV diastolic function are the 2 LV measurements that were significantly affected in the hypertensive group.
Comparison between both groups regarding LA parameters.
| No HTN | HTN | Independent | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. = 50 | No. = 50 | t | p-value | ||
| LA volume index (ml/m2) | Mean ± SD | 17.78 ± 2.71 | 20.74 ± 4.69 | −3.869 | |
| Range | 13–23 | 13–27 | |||
| Total LA stroke volume (ml) | Mean ± SD | 29.30 ± 3.69 | 27.02 ± 5.18 | 2.534 | |
| Range | 22–36 | 17–35 | |||
| LA expansion index (%) | Mean ± SD | 257.58 ± 19.05 | 223.68 ± 41.96 | 5.202 | |
| Range | 190–287 | 143–287 | |||
| Global PALS (%) | Mean ± SD | 41.36 ± 2.86 | 24.00 ± 6.92 | 16.399 | |
| Range | 35–46 | 8–36 | |||
The LA size (LA volume index) as well as the different indices of LA dysfunction (Total LA stroke volume, LA expansion index and global PALS); were significantly lower in the hypertensive group despite the normal LV volume index in all the studied subjects.
Correlation of global PALS with different risk factors.
| Global PALS (%) | Independent | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 23.51 ± 5.25 | 15–35 | 0.728 | 0.468 |
| Male | 22.47 ± 9.02 | 8–36 | |||
| DM | Negative | 28.35 ± 4.24 | 23 –36 | 6.098 | |
| Positive | 19.29 ± 6.15 | 8–32 | |||
| Smoking | Negative | 20.95 ± 5.51 | 15–36 | 1.205 | 0.231 |
| Positive | 19.75 ± 3.73 | 8–18 | |||
| LV diastolic dysfunction | None | 28.55 ± 3.5 | 24–35 | 23.737 | |
| I | 25.52 ± 5.74 | 14–36 | |||
| II | 14.6 ± 3.66 | 8–18 | |||
The presence of DM and higher grade of LV diastolic dysfunction were significantly associated with lower global PALS.
Correlation of global PALS (%) with the studied parameters of hypertensive patients.
| Global PALS (%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| r | p-value | |
| Age | −0.866** | |
| Bedside systolic blood pressure | −0.633** | |
| Bedside diastolic blood pressure | −0.113 | 0.563 |
| HR (bpm) | −0.252 | 0.078 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | −0.764** | |
| BSA (m2) | −0.167 | 0.246 |
| LA volume index (ml/m2) | −0.668** | |
| Total LA stroke volume (ml) | −0.072 | 0.820 |
| LA expansion index (%) | 0.828** | |
| LVEF (%) | 0.024 | 0.718 |
| LV mass index (gm/m2) | −0.655** | |
**Highly significant.
The higher age, systolic BP, BMI, LA volume index, and LV mass index and the lower LA expansion index were associated with lower global PALS.
Fig. 2Correlations with global PALS with [A] Age, [B] SBP, [C] BMI, [D] LA volume index, [E] LA expansion index, [F] LV mass index.
Fig. 3ROC curve for global PALS. “Below this value “≤35%”, the studied subject had LA dysfunction before LA enlargement with sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 98%”.