| Literature DB >> 30351410 |
Åsmund T Røe1,2, Marianne Ruud1,2, Emil K Espe1,2, Ornella Manfra1,2, Stefano Longobardi3, Jan M Aronsen1,4, Einar Sjaastad Nordén1,2,4, Trygve Husebye5, Terje R S Kolstad1,2, Alessandro Cataliotti1,2, Geir Christensen1,2, Ole M Sejersted1, Steven A Niederer3, Geir Øystein Andersen5, Ivar Sjaastad1,2, William E Louch1,2.
Abstract
AIMS: Regional heterogeneities in contraction contribute to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to determine whether regional changes in myocardial relaxation similarly contribute to diastolic dysfunction in post-infarction HFrEF, and to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Cardiomyocyte calcium cycling; Diastolic dysfunction; Heart failure; Post-infarction remodelling; Wall stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30351410 PMCID: PMC6432054 DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvy257
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Res ISSN: 0008-6363 Impact factor: 10.787
Figure 6Selection of LEAF trial participants. HFrEF patients were compared with non-failing ‘control’ individuals (EF ≥50%) who were without a detectable myocardial infarction at 6 weeks of follow-up.
Animal characteristics
| Sham | HFrEF | |
|---|---|---|
| Post-mortem ( | ||
| Heart to body weight ratio (mg/g) | 3.10 ± 0.13 | 5.51 ± 1.21 |
| Lung to body weight ratio (mg/g) | 3.37 ± 0.17 | 10.55 ± 0.53 |
| Echocardiography ( | ||
| Heart rate (min−1) | 409.8 ± 9.7 | 362.1 ± 7.5 |
| Peak trans-mitral flow (E) (mm/s) | 894.7 ± 16.1 | 1085.7 ± 54.8 |
| Peak trans-mitral deceleration rate (cm/s2) | 2968 ± 277 | 5438 ± 600 |
| MRI ( | ||
| Ejection fraction (%) | 69.6 ± 1.53 | 28.3 ± 8.7 |
| End-diastolic volume (µL) | 467.0 ± 13.9 | 1052 ± 33 |
| End-systolic volume (µL) | 142.6 ± 8.6 | 755.6 ± 26.3 |
| Left ventricular mass (g) | 0.70 ± 0.02 | 0.77 ± 0.02 |
| Left ventricular catheterization ( | ||
| End-diastolic pressure (mmHg) | 2.14 ± 0.27 | 26.5 ± 0.8 |
| d | 30 792 ± 1524 | 18 595 ± 551 |
Rats which developed HFrEF 6 weeks following myocardial infarction were functionally compared with sham-operated controls.
P < 0.05 vs. sham measured by Student’s t-test.
Patient characteristics
| Non-failing ( | HFrEF ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 64 ± 3.7 | 62 ± 3.7 |
| Heart rate (min−1) | 62 ± 2.5 | 77 ± 4.2 |
| End-diastolic volume (mL) | 90 ± 12.1 | 143 ± 11.6 |
| End-systolic volume (mL) | 37 ± 5.0 | 95 ± 9.1 |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) | 59 ± 1.4 | 34 ± 1.6 |
| E/A | 1.5 ± 0.20 | 1.1 ± 0.17 |
| 10.4 ± 1.0 | 11.9 ± 1.2 | |
| S/D | 1.14 ± 0.07 | 1.07 ± 0.13 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 78 ± 2.4 | 78 ± 3.1 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 123 ± 6.5 | 116 ± 4.8 |
| Infarct size (%) | 32 ± 6.0 | 54 ± 2.6 |
Participants in the LEAF trial exhibiting HFrEF were compared with non-failing individuals at 6 weeks of follow-up (see Fig. 6 for inclusion criteria).
E/A, mitral valve E-wave velocity/A-wave velocity, E/eʹ, mitral valve E velocity/mitral annular e′ velocity; S/D, pulmonary vein S-wave/D-wave velocity.
P < 0.05 vs. control measured by Student’s t-test.