| Literature DB >> 31272465 |
Jelena Čelutkienė1, Greta Burneikaitė2, Evgeny Shkolnik3, Gabrielius Jakutis2, Donatas Vajauskas2, Kamilė Čerlinskaitė2, Gitana Zuozienė2, Birutė Petrauskienė2, Roma Puronaitė2, Renata Komiagienė2, Irena Butkuvienė2, Rima Steponėnienė2, Jonas Misiūra2, Aleksandras Laucevičius2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent triple-blind sham procedure-controlled study revealed neutral effects of the cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) on exercise tolerance and symptoms in patients with stable angina. Current data about the effects of CSWT on global and regional myocardial contractility and perfusion is limited. Hereby we report the results of an imaging sub-study that evaluated the capacity of CSWT to ameliorate myocardial ischemia induced during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and cardiac single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac shock wave therapy; Coronary artery disease; Dobutamine stress echocardiography; Myocardial perfusion; Single photon emission computed tomography; Stable angina
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31272465 PMCID: PMC6610956 DOI: 10.1186/s12947-019-0163-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
Baseline characteristics of the study patients
| Variable | OMT + CSWT group ( | OMT + sham procedure group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic characteristics | |||
| Age, years | 67.2 ± 7.8 | 69.4 ± 7.8 | 0.274 |
| Male sex, n (%) | 19 (63.3) | 26 (89.7) |
|
| Cardiovascular risk factors | |||
| Hyperlipidaemia, n (%) | 30 (100) | 29 (100) | – |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 29 (96.7) | 29 (100) | – |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 8 (26.7) | 8 (27.6) | 0.937 |
| Peripheral vascular disease, n (%) | 10 (33.3) | 12 (41.4) | 0.523 |
| Current smoker, n (%) | 1 (3.3) | 4 (13.8) | 0.195 |
| Positive family history for CVD, n (%) | 10 (33.3) | 19 (5.5) |
|
| Medical history | |||
| Previous myocardial infarction, n (%) | 15 (50.0) | 23 (79.3) |
|
| Previous percutaneous intervention, n (%) | 16 (53.3) | 15 (51.7) | 0.902 |
| Previous CABG, n (%) | 20 (66.7) | 18 (62.1) | 0.712 |
| No revascularization, n (%) | 7 (23.3) | 7 (24.1) | 0.936 |
| Three-vessel disease, n (%) | 24 (80.0) | 22 (75.9) | 0.161 |
| Two-vessel disease, n (%) | 5 (16.7) | 2 (6.9) | |
| Clinical parameters | |||
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 30.0 ± 4.3 | 30.3 ± 3.8 | 0.755 |
| Angina episodes/week, median (25%;75%) | 5.5 (3.3; 14.8) | 7 (3.8; 15) | 0.500 |
| Nitroglycerine consumption (times/week), median (25%;75%) | 2 (1; 2) | 2 (0; 5) | 0.250 |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (echocardiographic), % | 54.4 ± 9.5 | 56.0 ± 7.2 | 0.366 |
| Systolic blood pressure, mmHg | 124.7 ± 20.9 | 128.1 ± 22.1 | 0.845 |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg | 81.1 ± 11.3 | 77.0 ± 11.2 | 0.341 |
| Angina CCS class | |||
| II, n (%) | 8 (26.7) | 9 (31.0) | 0.711 |
| III, n (%) | 22 (73.3) | 20 (69.0) | |
| Medical treatment | |||
| ACE inhibitors / ARB, n (%) | 30 (100) | 29 (100) | – |
| Beta-blocker, n (%) | 28 (93.1) | 27 (93.1) | 1 |
| Long acting nitrates, n (%) | 19 (63.3) | 15 (51.7) | 0.367 |
| Calcium channel blocker, n (%) | 16 (51.3) | 15 (51.7) | 0.902 |
| Trimetazidine, n (%) | 20 (66.7) | 15 (51.7) | 0.243 |
| Statins, n (%) | 30 (100) | 29 (100) | – |
| Mean dose of atorvastatin, mg | 36.2 ± 11.8a | 40.3 ± 17.0 | 0.286 |
| Antiplatelets, n (%) | 30 (100) | 29 (100) | – |
| Dual-antiplatelet therapy, n (%) | 4 (13.3) | 11 (37.9) | 0.031 |
| Oral anti-diabetics, n (%) | 4 (13.3) | 7 (24.1) | 0.287 |
| ECG Exercise test | |||
| Exercise duration, sec | 350.1 ± 133.1 | 370.4 ± 131.0 | 0.558 |
CABG Coronary artery bypass grafting, CCS Canadian Cardiovascular Society, CSWT Cardiac shock wave therapy, CVD cardiovascular disease, OMT optimal medical therapy, SAQ Seattle Angina Questionnaire
aone patient in this group was on fluvastatin 80 mg, not included in mean dose calculations
The primary, secondary endpoints and other characteristics of the imaging tests
| OMT + CSWT group | OMT + sham procedure group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 3- month | 6- month | Baseline | 3- month | 6- month | |
|
| ||||||
| WMSI at stress during DSE | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.4* | 1.4 ± 0.3* | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.3* |
| SDS during SPECT# | 5.5 [3.3; 7.0] | – | 3.0 [0; 5.0]*, & | 4.0 [3.0; 9.0]) | – | 5.0 [3.0; 8.0] |
|
| ||||||
| WMS at stress during DSE | 26.8 ± 7.0 | 24.2 ± 7.3* | 23.1 ± 5.8* | 26.3 ± 6.5 | 25.0 ± 5.7 | 23.5 ± 5.1* |
| LVEF at stress during DSE, % | 49.8 ± 11.2 | 54.1 ± 12.3* | 56.8 ± 9.4* | 51.6 ± 11.0 | 53.4 ± 11.6 | 53.7 ± 9.7 |
| Number of patients with at least moderate ischemia in DSE, n (%) | 17 (57) | 6 (21)* | 5 (18)* | 14 (48) | 10 (36) | 9 (35) |
| Number of patients with at least moderate ischemia in SPECT, n (%) | 22 (73) | – | 12 (46)* | 21 (72.4) | – | 17 (68) |
| ECG changes during stress DSE, n (%) | 22 (73) | 13 (46)*, & | 13 (46)* | 19 (66) | 21 (75) | 16 (62) |
| Angina during stress DSE, n (%) | 23 (77) | 12 (43)* | 10 (36)* | 18 (62) | 13 (46) | 11 (42)* |
| Global PSS at stress during DSE, % | −15.0 ± 3.2 | −13.7 ± 3.0 | −14.0 ± 2.3 | −15.1 ± 4.5 | − 13.7 ± 3.6 | −13.6 ± 2.4 |
| Summed stress score (SSS) during SPECT# | 8.5 [5.3; 12.8] | – | 5.0 [2.0; 12.0]* | 10.0 [4.0; 15.0] | – | 8.0 [3.0; 14.0] |
| TPD at stress during SPECT, %# | 13.0 [6.3; 18.8] | – | 7.0 [3.0; 17.5]* | 15.0 [6.0; 22.0] | – | 12.0 [4.0; 20.0] |
| TPD at rest during SPECT, %# | 2.0 [0; 7.8] | – | 0 [0; 7.0]) | 2.0 [0; 10.0]) | – | 3.0 [0; 9.0] |
| TPD difference during SPECT, % | 7.0 [4.3; 11.0] | – | 4.0 [0; 7.0]*,& | 7.0 [5.0; 13.0] | – | 7.0 [4.0; 12.0] |
|
| ||||||
| WMS at rest during DSE | 23.4 ± 7.8 | 23.6 ± 7.8 | 22.6 ± 6.4 | 23.8 ± 7.0 | 24.3 ± 6.9 | 22.8 ± 5.7 |
| WMSI at rest during DSE | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.3 |
| LVEF at rest during DSE, % | 46.5 ± 10.6 | 47.3 ± 11.0 | 49.8 ± 8.6* | 48.5 ± 9.0 | 48.2 ± 8.6 | 48.5 ± 8.1 |
| Number of positive DSE tests, n (%) | 21 (70) | 10 (36)* | 8 (29)* | 20 (69) | 13 (46) | 11 (4) |
| Number of positive SPECT tests, n (%) | 28 (93) | – | 18 (69)* | 28 (96) | – | 21 (84) |
| Global PSS at rest, % | −14.8 ± 3.4 | −13.2 ± 3.8 | −13.9 ± 2.7 | −14.1 ± 2.2 | −13.5 ± 2.6 | −13.0 ± 1.9 |
| SRS during SPECT# | 1.0 [0; 5.8] | – | 0 [0; 5.0] | 2.0 [0; 7.0] | 2.0 [0; 6.0] | |
WMSI wall motion score index, SDS summed difference score, DSE dobutamine stress echocardiography, SPECT single photon emission computed tomography, SRS summed rest score, ECG electrocardiogram, CH chamber view, CSWT Cardiac shock wave therapy, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, OMT optimal medical therapy, PSS peak systolic strain
Moderate ischemia was defined as ≥3 segments with stress induced severe hypokinesis or akinesis in DSE and as SDS 4–7 in SPECT
*- P < 0.05, comparison of follow up to baseline in the group, &- P < 0.05, comparison between study groups, # -values are presented as median [Interquartile range]
Fig. 1The dynamics of myocardial function and inducible ischemia evaluated by dobutamine stress echocardiography. a dynamics of wall motion score at baseline, 3 and 6 months of follow up in CSWT and sham procedure group; b changes of LV ejection fraction at baseline, 3 and 6 months of follow up in CSWT and sham procedure group; c distribution of mild, at least moderate or no ischemia at baseline, 3 and 6 months of follow up in CSWT and sham procedure group. CSWT – Cardiac shock wave therapy, LV – left ventricle, OMT – optimal medical therapy. Moderate ischemia defined as ≥3 segments with stress induced severe hypokinesis or akinesis. * - P was paired in the group and considered as significant (P < 0.05)
Fig. 2Dynamics of inducible myocardial ischemia evaluated by single photon emission computed tomography. a dynamics of perfusion scores at baseline, 3 and 6 months of follow up in CSWT and sham procedure group; b distribution of mild, moderate, severe or no ischemia at baseline, 3 and 6 months of follow up in CSWT and sham procedure group. CSWT – Cardiac shock wave therapy, OMT – optimal medical therapy, SSS – summed stress score, SRS – summed rest score, SDS – summed difference score. Moderate ischemia defined as summed difference score (SDS) at least 4. * - P was paired in the group and considered as significant (P < 0.05)
Fig. 3Summarized treatment effects of the cardiac shock wave therapy compared with sham procedure. a at 3 months of follow up; b – at 6 months of follow up. DSE – dobutamine stress echocardiography, ECG – electrocardiogram, LVEF – left ventricle ejection fraction, SDS – summed difference score, SPECT - single photon emission computed tomography, WMS – wall motion score
Reproducibility of the primary and secondary DSE and SPECT parameters
| Mean difference ± SD | Inter-observer ICC | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WMS at stress during DSE | −1.7 ± 4.6 | 0.816 | (0.54, 0.93) | < 0.001 |
| SDS during SPECT | 0.73 ± 3.4 | 0.757 | (0.64, 0.84) | < 0.001 |
| LVEF at stress during DSE, % | 3.8 ± 8.3 | 0.774 | (0.45, 0.92) | < 0.001 |
| Global PSS stress, % | −2.0 ± 2.6 | 0.602 | (0.13, 0.85) | 0.009 |
| SSS during SPECT | 0.01 ± 3.1 | 0.950 | (0.92, 0.97) | < 0.001 |
| WMS at rest during DSE | −0.2 ± 4.1 | 0.861 | (0.64, 0.95) | < 0.001 |
| LVEF at rest during DSE, % | 1.3 ± 4.6 | 0.932 | (0.81, 0.98) | < 0.001 |
| SRS during SPECT | −0.57 ± 2.9 | 0.942 | (0.91, 0.96) | < 0.001 |
| Global PSS rest, % | −1.02 ± 1.8 | 0.625 | (0.14, 0.87) | 0.008 |
CI confidence interval, ICC interclass correlation coefficient, LV left ventricular, PSS peak systolic strain, SD standard deviation