Hiroshi Kawakami1, Satish Ramkumar1, Faraz Pathan2, Leah Wright1, Thomas H Marwick1. 1. Department of Cardiac Imaging, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, 75 Commercial Road, Melbourne 3004, Australia. 2. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: Although both left atrial (LA) and ventricular (LV) dysfunction has been accepted as an important risk factor of atrial fibrillation (AF), usefulness of LA and LV strain has not been fully compared for prediction of AF. The aims of this study were to clarify the associations of both LA and LV strain with AF and to compare their predictive values in the risk stratification for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 531 consecutive patients (median age 67 years, 56% male), with no history of AF who underwent echocardiography after cryptogenic stroke. Standard echocardiographic parameters were measured, and speckle-tracking was used to measure LA (reservoir, pump, and conduit strain) and LV strain (global longitudinal strain, GLS). The baseline clinical and echocardiographic parameters of the patients who developed AF and those who did not were compared. Median 36 months of follow-up, 61 patients (11%) had newly diagnosed AF. LA pump strain and GLS were significantly and independently associated with AF and provided incremental predictive value over clinical and standard echocardiographic parameters. Areas under the receiver-operating curves for GLS (0.841) were comparable to LA pump (0.825) and reservoir (0.851) strain. However, predictive value of both strains was different between patients with and without LA enlargement at the time of transthoracic echocardiography screening. LA strain was more useful than LV strain in patients with normal LA volumes, while LV strain was more useful than LA strain in patients with abnormal LA volumes. CONCLUSION: Both LA and LV strain are significantly and independently associated with AF and provide incremental predictive value over clinical and standard echocardiographic parameters. However, priorities of strain assessment are different depends on patients' condition at the time of echocardiography. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Although both left atrial (LA) and ventricular (LV) dysfunction has been accepted as an important risk factor of atrial fibrillation (AF), usefulness of LA and LV strain has not been fully compared for prediction of AF. The aims of this study were to clarify the associations of both LA and LV strain with AF and to compare their predictive values in the risk stratification for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 531 consecutive patients (median age 67 years, 56% male), with no history of AF who underwent echocardiography after cryptogenic stroke. Standard echocardiographic parameters were measured, and speckle-tracking was used to measure LA (reservoir, pump, and conduit strain) and LV strain (global longitudinal strain, GLS). The baseline clinical and echocardiographic parameters of the patients who developed AF and those who did not were compared. Median 36 months of follow-up, 61 patients (11%) had newly diagnosed AF. LA pump strain and GLS were significantly and independently associated with AF and provided incremental predictive value over clinical and standard echocardiographic parameters. Areas under the receiver-operating curves for GLS (0.841) were comparable to LA pump (0.825) and reservoir (0.851) strain. However, predictive value of both strains was different between patients with and without LA enlargement at the time of transthoracic echocardiography screening. LA strain was more useful than LV strain in patients with normal LA volumes, while LV strain was more useful than LA strain in patients with abnormal LA volumes. CONCLUSION: Both LA and LV strain are significantly and independently associated with AF and provide incremental predictive value over clinical and standard echocardiographic parameters. However, priorities of strain assessment are different depends on patients' condition at the time of echocardiography. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Satish Ramkumar; Hong Yang; Mark Nolan; Tomoko Negishi; James E Sharman; Thomas H Marwick; Kazuaki Negishi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Gabriella Bufano; Francesco Radico; Carolina D'Angelo; Francesca Pierfelice; Maria Vittoria De Angelis; Massimiliano Faustino; Sante Donato Pierdomenico; Sabina Gallina; Giulia Renda Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-25
Authors: Cassady Palmer; Vien T Truong; Jeremy A Slivnick; Sarah Wolking; Paige Coleman; Wojciech Mazur; Karolina M Zareba Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ravi B Patel; Joseph A Delaney; Mo Hu; Harnish Patel; Jeanette Cheng; John Gottdiener; Jorge R Kizer; Gregory M Marcus; Mintu P Turakhia; Rajat Deo; Susan R Heckbert; Bruce M Psaty; Sanjiv J Shah Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-10-02