Rosa Lillo1, Francesca Graziani2, Elena Panaioli1, Erica Mencarelli1, Maurizio Pieroni3, Antonia Camporeale4, Raffaele Manna5, Ludovico Luca Sicignano6, Elena Verrecchia6, Antonella Lombardo1, Gaetano Antonio Lanza1, Filippo Crea1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: francesca.graziani@policlinicogemelli.it. 3. Cardiovascular Department, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy. 4. Multimodality Cardiac Imaging Section, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. 5. Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy; Rare diseases and Periodic Fever Research Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 6. Rare diseases and Periodic Fever Research Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 2D speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) is superior to standard echocardiography in the assessment of subtle right ventricle (RV) systolic dysfunction. In this study we aimed to: 1) test the hypothesis that 2DSTE may unveil subtle RV systolic dysfunction in patients with Fabry disease; 2) investigate whether the physiologic difference between the 3-segment (RV-FWS) and the 6-segment (RV-GLS) RV strain (∆RV strain) is preserved in Fabry patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Standard echocardiography and 2DSTE were performed in 49 Fabry patients and 49 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Fabry patients were divided in two groups according to the presence/absence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH+: left ventricular wall thickness > 12 mm, 49% of total Fabry patients). RV systolic function assessed by standard echocardiography was normal in the majority of Fabry patients (92%) while RV-GLS and RV-FWS were impaired in about 40%. RV-GLS and RV-FWS were significantly worse in patients LVH+ vs LVH- and vs controls (RV-GLS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.8 ± -3.1% p<0.001; LVH+ vs controls: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.9 ± -2.8% p<0.001; RV-FWS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.7 ± -3.8% p = 0.002, LVH+ vs controls -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.8 ± -3.9% p<0.001). No difference was found between LVH- patients and controls in both RV-GLS (p = 0.65) and RV-FWS (p = 0.79). ∆RV strain was similar among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In Fabry cardiomyopathy impaired RV-GLS and RV-FWS is a common finding, while RV strain is preserved in Fabry patients without overt cardiac involvement. The physiologic difference between RV-FWS and RV-GLS is maintained in Fabry patients, regardless of the presence of cardiomyopathy.
BACKGROUND: 2D speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) is superior to standard echocardiography in the assessment of subtle right ventricle (RV) systolic dysfunction. In this study we aimed to: 1) test the hypothesis that 2DSTE may unveil subtle RV systolic dysfunction in patients with Fabry disease; 2) investigate whether the physiologic difference between the 3-segment (RV-FWS) and the 6-segment (RV-GLS) RV strain (∆RV strain) is preserved in Fabry patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Standard echocardiography and 2DSTE were performed in 49 Fabry patients and 49 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Fabry patients were divided in two groups according to the presence/absence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH+: left ventricular wall thickness > 12 mm, 49% of total Fabry patients). RV systolic function assessed by standard echocardiography was normal in the majority of Fabry patients (92%) while RV-GLS and RV-FWS were impaired in about 40%. RV-GLS and RV-FWS were significantly worse in patients LVH+ vs LVH- and vs controls (RV-GLS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.8 ± -3.1% p<0.001; LVH+ vs controls: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.9 ± -2.8% p<0.001; RV-FWS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.7 ± -3.8% p = 0.002, LVH+ vs controls -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.8 ± -3.9% p<0.001). No difference was found between LVH- patients and controls in both RV-GLS (p = 0.65) and RV-FWS (p = 0.79). ∆RV strain was similar among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In Fabry cardiomyopathy impaired RV-GLS and RV-FWS is a common finding, while RV strain is preserved in Fabry patients without overt cardiac involvement. The physiologic difference between RV-FWS and RV-GLS is maintained in Fabry patients, regardless of the presence of cardiomyopathy.