| Literature DB >> 33211238 |
Letizia Spinelli1, Giuseppe Giugliano2, Antonio Pisani3, Massimo Imbriaco2, Eleonora Riccio3, Camilla Russo2, Alberto Cuocolo2, Bruno Trimarco2, Giovanni Esposito2.
Abstract
In Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) the impact of left ventricular (LV) function on cardiac outcome is unknown. Noninvasive LV pressure-strain loop analysis is a new echocardiographic method to estimate myocardial work (MW). We aimed to evaluate whether LV function was associated with outcome and whether MW had a prognostic value in AFD. Ninety-six AFD patients (41.8 ± 14.7 years, 43.7% males) with normal LV ejection fraction were retrospectively evaluated. Inclusion criteria were sinus rhythm and ≥ 2-year follow-up. Standard echocardiography measurements, myocardial mechano-energetic efficiency (MEE) index, global longitudinal strain (GLS) and MW were evaluated. Adverse cardiac events were defined as composite of cardiac death, malignant ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation and severe heart failure development. During a median follow-up of 63 months (interquartile range 37-85), 14 events occurred. Patient age, cardiac biomarkers, LV mass index, left atrium volume, E/Ea ratio, LV ejection fraction, MEE index, GLS and all MW indices were significantly related to adverse outcome at univariate analysis. After adjustment for clinical and echocardiographic parameters, which were significant at univariate analysis, GLS and MW resulted independent predictors of adverse events (p < 0.01). By ROC curve analysis, constructive MW ≤ 1513 mmHg% showed the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting adverse outcome (92.9% and 86.6%, respectively). MW did not improve the predictive value of a model including clinical data, LV diastolic function and GLS. LV function impairment (both systolic and diastolic) is associated with adverse events in AFD. MW does not provide additive information over clinical features and systolic and diastolic function.Entities:
Keywords: Adverse cardiac event; Anderson–Fabry disease; LV longitudinal strain; Myocardial work
Year: 2020 PMID: 33211238 PMCID: PMC8026432 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-020-02105-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging ISSN: 1569-5794 Impact factor: 2.357
Characteristics of AFD patients according to sex
| All patients (n = 96) | Females (n = 54) | Males (n = 42) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 41.8 ± 14.7 | 41.1 ± 14.9 | 42.8 ± 14.6 | 0.570 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 25.5 ± 5.2 | 25.2 ± 6.0 | 25.7 ± 3.8 | 0.578 |
| NYHA class 1 | 84 (87.5) | 49 (90.7) | 35 (83.3) | 0.276 |
| NYHA class 2 | 12 (12.5) | 5 (9.3) | 7 (16.7) | 0.276 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2 ) | 93.2 ± 31.9 | 102.2 ± 25.4 | 81.6 ± 35.7 | 0.001 |
| Kidney transplant, n (%) | 4 (4.2) | 0 | 4 (9.5) | < 0.001 |
| ERT at baseline, n (%) | 16 (16.7) | 4 (7.4) | 12 (28.6) | 0.006 |
| ERT started during follow-up, n (%) | 59 (61.5) | 23 (42.6) | 36 (85.7) | < 0.001 |
| Heart rate (b/min) | 69.0 ± 11.5 | 70.2 ± 11.1 | 67.4 ± 11.9 | 0.235 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 123.0 ± 16.6 | 119.8 ± 16.1 | 127.0 ± 16.6 | 0.034 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 74.9 ± 10.7 | 74.2 ± 11.4 | 75.8 ± 9.9 | 0.452 |
| Hs-TnI (pg/mL) | 33.9 ± 111.9 | 21.7 ± 65.1 | 49.5 ± 151.9 | 0.228 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 352.4 ± 769.6 | 184.7 ± 496.4 | 568.1 ± 984.4 | 0.015 |
| LV hypertrophy, n (%) | 35 (36.5) | 11 (20.4) | 24 (57.1) | < 0.001 |
| LV mass index (g/m2.7) | 48.5 ± 19.7 | 42.3 ± 15.6 | 57.8 ± 27.9 | < 0.001 |
| Left atrium volume (mL/m2) | 36.5 ± 14.7 | 33.9 ± 15.4 | 39.8 ± 13.2 | 0.050 |
| E/Ea ratio | 9.8 ± 4.8 | 8.9 ± 4.1 | 10.9 ± 5.4 | 0.037 |
| LV EDVi (mL/m2) | 59.1 ± 15.6 | 55.6 ± 15.9 | 63.5 ± 14.3 | 0.014 |
| LV ESVi (mL/m2) | 23.5 ± 11.2 | 21.8 ± 10.9 | 25.6 ± 11.3 | 0.099 |
| LV ejection fraction (%) | 62.4 ± 5.8 | 63.2 ± 5.8 | 61.4 ± 5.8 | 0.126 |
| GLS (%) | -16.9 ± 4.1 | -18.2 ± 3.8 | -15.3 ± 3.9 | < 0.001 |
| MEE index (mL/s per g) | 0.32 ± 0.12 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 0.31 ± 0.13 | 0.394 |
| GWI (mmHg%) | 1678.4 ± 523.61 | 1815.4 ± 506.2 | 1502.2 ± 497.5 | 0.003 |
| GCW (mmHg%) | 1821.6 ± 546.0 | 1953.9 ± 540.1 | 1651.4 ± 510.9 | 0.006 |
| GWW (mmHg%) | 99.3 ± 77.2 | 94.7 ± 82.4 | 105.1 ± 70.5 | 0.517 |
| GWE (%) | 92.5 ± 6.8 | 93.8 ± 6.1 | 91.0 ± 7.5 | 0.047 |
BMI body mass index, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, ERT enzyme replacement therapy, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, hs-TnI high-sensitivity troponin I, NT-proBNP N-terminal prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide, LV left ventricular, E/Ea ratio the ratio of mitral (E) to mitral annulus (Ea) early diastolic peak velocity, EDVi end-diastolic volume indexed to body surface area, ESVi end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area, MEE mechano-energetic efficiency, GWI global work index, GCW global constructive work, GWW global wasted work, GWE global work efficiency
Fig. 1Relationships between LV myocardial work indices and standard echocardiography parameters. Linear regression analysis showing the relationship between LV mass index, left atrial volume and E/Ea ratio with global work index (upper panel), global constructive work (middle panel), and global work efficiency (lower panel)
Predictors of events during follow-up at univariate Cox analysis
| HR | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 1.082 | 1.034–1.133 | 0.001 |
| Male sex | 2.346 | 0.783–7.033 | 0.128 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 1.019 | 0.938–1.107 | 0.656 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 0.978 | 0.961–0.996 | 0.016 |
| Heart rate (b/min) | 0.989 | 0.943–1.037 | 0.647 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 1.008 | 0.974–1.043 | 0.668 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 1.010 | 0.967–1.054 | 0.657 |
| hs-TnI (pg/mL) | 1.002 | 1.001–1.004 | 0.031 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 1.001 | 1.001–1.002 | 0.002 |
| LV hypertrophy | 13.805 | 1.802–105.750 | 0.012 |
| LV mass index (g/m2.7) | 1.022 | 1.008–1.036 | 0.002 |
| Left atrium volume (mL/m2) | 1.028 | 1.011–1.045 | 0.001 |
| E/Ea ratio | 1.162 | 1.082–1.248 | < 0.001 |
| LV EDVi (mL/m2) | 1.006 | 0.974–1.038 | 0.730 |
| LV ESVi (mL/m2) | 1.021 | 0.993–1.048 | 0.139 |
| LV ejection fraction (%) | 0.926 | 0.873–0.984 | 0.012 |
| Global longitudinal strain (%) | 1.309 | 1.124–1.525 | 0.001 |
| MEE index (mL/s per g) | 0.906 | 0.849–0.965 | 0.002 |
| GWI (mmHg%) | 0.998 | 0.997–0.999 | < 0.001 |
| GCW (mmHg%) | 0.998 | 0.997–0.999 | < 0.001 |
| GWW (mmHg%) | 1.006 | 1.003–1.009 | < 0.001 |
| GWE (%) | 0.897 | 0.854–0.943 | < 0.001 |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, hs-TnI high-sensitivity troponin I, NT-proBNP N-terminal prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide, LV left ventricular, E/Ea ratio the ratio of mitral (E) to mitral annulus (Ea) early diastolic peak velocity, EDVi end-diastolic volume indexed to body surface area, ESVi end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area, MEE mechano-energetic efficiency, GWI global work index, GCW global constructive work, GWW global wasted work, GWE global work efficiency
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of the ability of complex LV function measurements to predict adverse cardiac events
| Global longitudinal strain (%) | MEE index (mL/s per g) | GWI (mmHg%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p | HR | 95% CI | p | HR | 95% CI | p | |
| Univariate analysis | 1.309 | 1.124–1.525 | 0.001 | 0.906 | 0.849–0.965 | 0.002 | 0.998 | 0.997–0.999 | < 0.001 |
| Adjusted modela | 1.373 | 1.035–1.821 | 0.028 | 0.942 | 0.850–1.043 | 0.249 | 0.997 | 0.996–0.999 | 0.003 |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, MEE mechano-energetic efficiency, GWI global work index, GCW global constructive work, GWW global wasted work, GWE global work efficiency
aMultivariate Cox analyses adjusted for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, high-sensitivity troponin I, N-terminal prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide, left ventricular mass index, left atrium volume, the ratio of mitral to mitral annulus early diastolic peak velocity, and left ventricular ejection fraction (entry criteria p < 0.05 at univariate analysis)
Fig. 2Pressure–strain loops by estimated LV pressure and LV longitudinal strain by means of echocardiography. Representative example of global myocardial work measurements from an event-free AFD patient (upper panel) and a patient with adverse event at follow-up (lower panel). a LV pressure–strain loop; b Bull’s eye plot showing segmental LV myocardial work index in a 17-segment model; c constructive work (green column) and wasted work (blue column) values. LVP LV pressure, GLS global longitudinal strain, GWI global work index, GCW global constructive work, GWW global wasted work, GWE global work efficiency, BP blood pressure
Predictors of events accuracy (ROC curve analysis)
| AUC | 95% CI | p | Youden index | Criterion | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.767 | 0.669–0.847 | 0.0001 | 0.4460 | > 49 | 71.4 | 73.2 |
| Male sex | 0.620 | 0.515–0.717 | 0.0942 | 0.2404 | + | 64.3 | 59.8 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 0.749 | 0.650–0.832 | 0.0003 | 0.4007 | ≤ 69.0 | 57.1 | 82.9 |
| hs-TnI (pg/mL) | 0.878 | 0.795– 0.936 | < 0.0001 | 0.7596 | > 8.0 | 85.7 | 90.2 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 0.834 | 0.744–0.902 | < 0.0001 | 0.5906 | > 158 | 78.6 | 80.5 |
| LV hypertrophy | 0.830 | 0.745–0.915 | < 0.0001 | 0.6603 | + | 92.9 | 73.2 |
| LV mass index (g/m2.7) | 0.872 | 0.744–1.000 | < 0.0001 | 0.7700 | > 54.3 | 92.9 | 84.1 |
| Left atrium volume (mL/m2) | 0.909 | 0.819–0.999 | < 0.0001 | 0.7247 | > 43 | 78.6 | 93.9 |
| E/Ea | 0.925 | 0.845–1.000 | < 0.0001 | 0.8084 | > 12.8 | 85.7 | 95.1 |
| LV ejection fraction (%) | 0.708 | 0.512–0.904 | 0.0372 | 0.4617 | ≤ 57 | 57.1 | 89.0 |
| GLS (%) | 0.848 | 0.756–0.940 | < 0.0001 | 0.5767 | > -15.5 | 85.7 | 71.9 |
| MEE index (mL/s per g) | 0.858 | 0.740–0.977 | < 0.0001 | 0.6969 | ≤ 0.26 | 92.9 | 76.8 |
| GWI (mmHg%) | 0.892 | 0.766- 1.000 | < 0.0001 | 0.7247 | ≤ 1148 | 78.6 | 93.9 |
| GCW (mmHg%) | 0.908 | 0.797–1.000 | < 0.0001 | 0.7944 | ≤ 1513 | 92.9 | 86.6 |
| GWW (mmHg%) | 0.812 | 0.697–0.928 | < 0.0001 | 0.4669 | > 83 | 85.7 | 61.0 |
| GWE (%) | 0.915 | 0.830–1.000 | < 0.0001 | 0.7108 | ≤ 91 | 85.7 | 85.4 |
ROC receiver operating characteristic, AUC area underthecurve, CI confidence interval, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, hs-TnI high-sensitivity troponin I, NT-proBNP N-terminal prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide, LV left ventricular, E/Ea ratio the ratio of mitral (E) to mitral annulus (Ea) early diastolic peak velocity, MEE mechano-energetic efficiency, GWE global work efficiency, GWI global work index, GCW global constructive work, GWW global wasted work
Fig. 3Global longitudinal strain, myocardial work indices and prognosis. Kaplan–Meier curves for major cardiac events in AFD patients categorized according to the cut-off values obtained by ROC analysis for a global longitudinal strain (GLS), b global work index (GWI), c global constructive work (GCW) and d global work efficiency (GWE)
Fig. 4Incremental value in predicting outcome of global longitudinal strain over clinical and traditional echocardiographic variables. Bars show the global χ2 values of different prediction models obtained by Cox regression analysis in a stepwise fashion