Literature DB >> 33011117

The Predictive Role of Left and Right Ventricular Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography in COVID-19.

Ehud Rothschild, Guy Baruch, Yishay Szekely, Yael Lichter, Alon Kaplan, Philippe Taieb, Michal Laufer-Perl, Gil Beer, Livia Kapusta, Yan Topilsky.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33011117      PMCID: PMC7434478          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.07.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1876-7591


× No keyword cloud information.
A recent study shows that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved in most patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection, but LV diastolic and right ventricular (RV) function are impaired (1). We assessed left and right myocardial systolic function by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) in 100 consecutive patients with COVID-19 and analyzed their prognostic value on survival and need for intubation. All patients had a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by a polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 and underwent STE examination within 24 h of admission. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were systematically recorded. Patients were risk stratified according to their COVID-19 Modified Early Warning Score (1). Routine computed tomography was not done due to the risk of contamination of the computed tomography area. All patients who experienced clinical deterioration (need for intubation or hemodynamic deterioration) underwent repeated STE. Median time between consecutive measurements was 3.5 days (interquartile range: 3 to 5 days). To reduce exposure and contamination, STE was assessed off-line. Nonadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models for mortality or combined event (death or new need for intubation) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for STE parameters. Analysis for survival was obtained for all patients. Analyses for the combined event were done, excluding 9 patients who were mechanically ventilated before baseline STE. The ethics committee of the Tel Aviv Medical Center approved the study (Institutional Review Board number 0196-20-TLV) and voided the requirement of informed consent for the echocardiographic assessment. A total of 100 patients with COVID-19 infection (age 64.3 ± 20.7 years, 64% male) underwent routine echocardiographic evaluation, and subsequent off-line STE evaluation was feasible in 93 (93%), 83 (83%), and 78 (78%) patients for the LV, RV, or both ventricles, respectively. At the time of baseline STE, 61, 26, and 13 patients had mild, moderate, or severe disease, respectively. The latter had high troponin I (763 ng/l), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (75 pg/ml), and C-reactive protein (162.3 mg/l). Although only 11% of patients had EF ≤50%, abnormal LV (based on peak LV global longitudinal strain [GLS] ≤16.6) and RV free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWLS) (≤20.0) were observed in 42% and 38%, respectively. In 35 of 78 (45%) of patients assessed for both ventricles, all strain parameters were in the normal range. The lowest RV strain values were for the mid and apical septal segments (p < 0.0001 for trend). Patients with poorer clinical grade levels had worse LVGLS, LVFWLS, RVGLS, and RVFWLS (p < 0.05 for all). Of note, septal strain parameters and routine echocardiographic parameters of the LV were not different between the groups. All strain measurements had good intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. The peak LVGLS intraclass correlation was 0.89 and 0.86, respectively, and for RVFWLS was 0.90 and 0.88, respectively. Second echocardiography was required in 19% of patients. In these patients, the most common pattern was RV STE deterioration, mostly in the mid segments with apical sparing (p < 0.05). At the end of follow-up (27 [18, 40] days) 23 patients died and 14 patients needed intubation, or both. The impact of clinical and STE characteristics on mortality and clinical event rate is summarized in Table 1 . Survival was reduced with abnormal LVGLS (74 ± 7% vs. 92 ± 8% at 30-day follow-up; p = 0.05). Survival was reduced with abnormal RVFWLS (76 ± 7% vs. 92 ± 5% at 30-day follow-up; p = 0.03). LVGLS was associated with mortality (HR 0.8; p = 0.003] and combined events (HR: 0.80; p = 0.005) when adjusted for EF, or if adjusted for tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and BNP (HR for mortality: 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.19 to 0.95; p = 0.02; HR for combined event: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 0.94; p = 0.01). RVFWLS was associated with combined events (HR: 0.84; p = 0.008) after adjustment for RV S′ or age and Modified Early Warning Score (HR: 0.90; p = 0.05) but not if adjusted for tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and BNP.
Table 1

Impact of Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics on Mortality and Clinical Event Rate

Outcome
Death (n = 23)p ValueIntubation (n = 14)p ValueCombined (n = 30)p Value
Age1.04 (1.02–1.06)0.0011.00 (0.98–1.03)0.701.03 (1.01–1.05)0.001
Male1.02 (0.36–3.20)0.901.40 (0.46–5.00)0.601.06 (0.47–2.60)0.90
Modified Early Warning Score1.30 (1.17–1.50)<0.0011.35 (1.16–1.60)<0.0011.40 (1.26–1.56)<0.001
Temperature1.18 (0.65–2.04)0.501.89 (1.03–3.30)0.041.80 (1.18–2.70)0.005
O2 saturation0.85 (0.78–0.92)<0.0010.87 (0.79–0.97)0.010.85 (0.79–0.91)<0.001
Heart rate1.00 (0.97–1.03)0.601.04 (1.00–1.07)0.021.03 (1.00–1.05)0.05
Systolic blood pressure0.98 (0.96–1.01)0.400.98 (0.95–1.01)0.200.99 (0.98–1.02)0.90
Diastolic blood pressure0.97 (0.95–1.00)0.200.99 (0.96–1.03)0.700.99 (0.97–1.02)0.90
C-reactive protein1.00 (0.99–1.01)0.101.01 (1.00–1.02)<0.0011.01 (1.00–1.01)0.002
D-dimers1.07 (0.91–1.18)0.301.18 (1.06–1.30)0.0051.12 (0.99–1.22)0.06
Troponin I1.00 (0.99–1.00)0.801.00 (1.00–1.01)0.031.00 (0.99–1.00)0.20
B-type natriuretic peptide1.00 (1.00–1.02)0.021.00 (0.99–1.01)0.901.00 (0.99–1.01)0.08
LV assessment
 Ejection fraction0.93 (0.86–1.04)0.201.00 (0.89–1.18)0.900.96 (0.90–1.06)0.40
 LV end-diastolic diameter0.97 (0.94–1.01)0.200.98 (0.95–1.03)0.500.98 (0.95–1.01)0.20
 LV end-systolic diameter0.97 (0.92–1.03)0.400.99 (0.93–1.07)0.800.97 (0.93–1.02)0.30
 E/A0.28 (0.02–2.00)0.200.02 (0.001–0.30)0.0040.44 (0.10–1.60)0.20
 E/e′ average1.04 (0.96–1.10)0.200.94 (0.78–1.05)0.401.04 (0.98–1.09)0.10
 Peak LV global longitudinal strain0.84 (0.73–0.96)0.010.88 (0.75–1.03)0.100.83 (0.74–0.93)0.001
 End-systolic LV global longitudinal strain0.87 (0.76–1.00)0.050.88 (0.75–1.03)0.100.83 (0.74–0.93)0.001
 Peak LV free wall longitudinal strain0.90 (0.79–1.01)0.090.86 (0.74–0.99)0.040.87 (0.79–0.96)0.007
 End-systolic LV free wall longitudinal strain0.90 (0.80–1.01)0.080.83 (0.74–0.98)0.030.87 (0.79–0.96)0.005
 Peak LV septal wall longitudinal strain0.89 (0.78–1.02)0.100.94 (0.81–1.08)0.400.86 (0.77–0.95)0.003
RV assessment
 Right atrial pressure1.03 (0.87–1.16)0.601.06 (0.88–1.20)0.501.03 (0.91–1.13)0.50
 RV end-diastolic area1.02 (0.91–1.14)0.701.04 (0.92–1.19)0.500.97 (0.89–1.06)0.60
 RV end-systolic area1.05 (0.90–1.19)0.501.10 (0.94–1.20)0.201.02 (0.90–1.15)0.60
 RV fractional area change0.96 (0.90–1.03)0.300.96 (0.89–1.04)0.300.96 (0.92–1.02)0.20
 Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion0.17 (0.07–0.45)0.0050.45 (0.15–1.44)0.200.32 (0.15–0.73)0.008
 RV S'0.82 (0.72–0.96)0.020.86 (0.74–1.04)0.100.81 (0.71–0.93)0.003
 Tei index6.10 (1.19–24.00)0.030.93 (0.04–7.20)0.904.00 (1.08–12.2)0.04
 Peak RV 4-chamber longitudinal strain0.89 (0.76–1.03)0.100.85 (0.71–1.00)0.050.85 (0.75–0.96)0.008
 End-systolic RV 4-chamber longitudinal strain0.88 (0.74–1.02)0.090.86 (0.72–1.01)0.070.85 (0.74–0.95)0.007
 Peak RV free wall longitudinal strain0.91 (0.81–1.02)0.100.88 (0.78–1.00)0.060.83 (0.75–0.93)0.0006
 End-systolic RV free wall longitudinal strain0.87 (0.77–0.98)0.030.85 (0.71–1.00)0.050.85 (0.75–0.96)0.008
 Peak RV septal wall longitudinal strain0.94 (0.81–1.08)0.400.86 (0.73–1.01)0.070.91 (0.82–1.02)0.10
 End-systolic RV septal wall longitudinal strain0.93 (0.81–1.07)0.400.90 (0.78–1.04)0.100.92 (0.84–1.02)0.10
 Peak RV apical septal segment longitudinal strain0.93 (0.83–1.05)0.300.95 (0.84–1.09)0.500.95 (0.87–1.05)0.40
 Peak RV mid septal segment longitudinal strain0.89 (0.79–1.00)0.050.97 (0.85–1.09)0.600.91 (0.83–0.99)0.04
 Peak RV basal septal segment longitudinal strain1.02 (0.94–1.11)0.600.90 (0.83–1.02)0.100.96 (0.90–1.0300.30
 Peak RV apical free wall segment longitudinal strain0.97 (0.90–1.05)0.500.90 (0.82–0.98)0.010.95 (0.89–1.00)0.09
 Peak RV mid free wall segment longitudinal strain0.93 (0.83–1.05)0.300.95 (0.84–1.09)0.500.95 (0.87–1.05)0.40
 Peak RV basal free wall segment longitudinal strain1.02 (0.94–1.11)0.500.92 (0.83–1.01)0.100.96 (0.90–1.03)0.30

Values are hazard ratio (95% confidence interval).

E/A = E wave velocity divided by A wave velocity; E/e′ = E wave velocity divided by E prime velocity; LV = left ventricular; RV = right ventricular.

Impact of Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics on Mortality and Clinical Event Rate Values are hazard ratio (95% confidence interval). E/A = E wave velocity divided by A wave velocity; E/e′ = E wave velocity divided by E prime velocity; LV = left ventricular; RV = right ventricular. A recent report (2) showed that RV strain predicts mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection. However, RV assessment was limited to RVFWLS, and LV strain analyses and repeated exams were not performed. We are the first to show the segmental nature of RV dysfunction, with patterns typical for pulmonary embolism or other types of acute cor pulmonale (3, 4, 5). Furthermore, we are the first to evaluate LV strain in patients with COVID-19 infection. We show that abnormal LV longitudinal strain is more common than reduced EF, and that LV STE is superior to LVEF for predicting adverse outcome in patients with COVID 19 infection. In conclusion, with COVID-19 infection, LV and RV STE are abnormal in ∼40% of patients. Poorer clinical grade and clinical deterioration are mostly associated with worsening RV segmental STE, in pattern suggestive of acute cor pulmonale. LV and RV STE are strong predictors of mortality and need for intubation in patients with COVID-19 infection.
  4 in total

1.  Regional right ventricular strain pattern in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Elke Platz; Amira H Hassanein; Amil Shah; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Scott D Solomon
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 1.724

2.  Right ventricular apical contractility in acute pulmonary embolism: the McConnell sign revisited.

Authors:  Angel López-Candales; Kathy Edelman; Maria Dolores Candales
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 1.724

3.  Right ventricular function in acute pulmonary embolism: a combined assessment by three-dimensional and speckle-tracking echocardiography.

Authors:  Antonio Vitarelli; Francesco Barillà; Lidia Capotosto; Ilaria D'Angeli; Giovanni Truscelli; Melissa De Maio; Rasul Ashurov
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2013-12-08       Impact factor: 5.251

4.  Spectrum of Cardiac Manifestations in COVID-19: A Systematic Echocardiographic Study.

Authors:  Yishay Szekely; Yael Lichter; Philippe Taieb; Ariel Banai; Aviram Hochstadt; Ilan Merdler; Amir Gal Oz; Ehud Rothschild; Guy Baruch; Yogev Peri; Yaron Arbel; Yan Topilsky
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 29.690

  4 in total
  11 in total

1.  Sex Differences in the Incidence and Risk Factors of Myocardial Injury in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Ran Cheng; Chuan Liu; Jie Yang; Yuanqi Yang; Renzheng Chen; Xiaohan Ding; Xubin Gao; Jingbin Ke; Fangzhengyuan Yuan; Chunyan He; Yang Shen; Limin Zhang; Ping Li; Hu Tan; Lan Huang
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.566

2.  Could strain echocardiography help to assess systolic function in critically ill COVID-19 patients?

Authors:  Filipe Gonzalez; Rui Gomes; Jacobo Bacariza; Frederic Michard
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Normalized Cardiac Structure and Function in COVID-19 Survivors Late After Recovery.

Authors:  Yi-Ping Gao; Wei Zhou; Pei-Na Huang; Hong-Yun Liu; Xiao-Jun Bi; Ying Zhu; Jie Sun; Qiao-Ying Tang; Li Li; Jun Zhang; Rui-Ying Sun; Xue-Qing Cheng; Ya-Ni Liu; You-Bin Deng
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-11-29

Review 4.  Echocardiography in COVID-19 Pandemic: Clinical Findings and the Importance of Emerging Technology.

Authors:  Alberto Barosi; Luca Bergamaschi; Ignazio Cusmano; Alessio Gasperetti; Marco Schiavone; Elisa Gherbesi
Journal:  Card Electrophysiol Clin       Date:  2021-10-30

5.  Characteristic Immune Dynamics in COVID-19 Patients with Cardiac Dysfunction.

Authors:  Filipe André Gonzalez; Miguel Ângelo-Dias; Catarina Martins; Rui Gomes; Jacobo Bacariza; Antero Fernandes; Luís Miguel Borrego
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Recovery of cardiac function following COVID-19.

Authors:  Eihab Ghantous; Yan Topilsky
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 15.534

7.  Secondary bacterial infections are a leading factor triggering New Onset Atrial Fibrillation in intubated ICU Covid-19 ARDS patients.

Authors:  George E Zakynthinos; Vasiliki Tsolaki; Nikitas Karavidas; Vassileios Vazgiourakis; George Dimeas; Konstantinos Mantzarlis; George Vavougios; Demosthenes Makris
Journal:  J Infect Public Health       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 7.537

8.  The usefulness of speckle tracking echocardiography in identifying subclinical myocardial dysfunction in young adults recovered from mild COVID-19.

Authors:  Elisa Gherbesi; Luca Bergamaschi; Ignazio Cusmano; Thien Trung Tien; Pasquale Paolisso; Alberto Foà; Carmine Pizzi; Alberto Barosi
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 1.874

Review 9.  Utility of Non-invasive Cardiac Imaging Assessment in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Authors:  Sandeep S Hothi; Jin Jiang; Richard P Steeds; William E Moody
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-05-21

10.  Cardiac remodelling following coronavirus disease 2019 infection?

Authors:  Yishay Szekely; Yan Topilsky
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 9.130

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.