| Literature DB >> 35160221 |
Sergio Alejandro Gómez-Ochoa1, Lyda Z Rojas2, Juliana Alexandra Hernández-Vargas3, Jorge Largo4, Taulant Muka1, Luis E Echeverría5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCM) is ranked among heart failure etiologies with the highest mortality rates. CCM is characterized by alterations in left ventricular function with a typical and unique pattern of myocardial involvement. Left ventricle longitudinal speckle tracking strain is emerging as an important additive method for evaluating left ventricular function and risk of future cardiovascular events. This systematic review aimed to characterize the left ventricle (LV) longitudinal strain by speckle tracking patterns in the different stages of Chagas disease, compared to healthy controls.Entities:
Keywords: Chagas disease; echocardiography; speckle tracking strain
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160221 PMCID: PMC8846382 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11030769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Flowchart summarizing study selection process.
Baseline demographic characteristics of patients assessed in the included studies.
| Studies | Publication Year | Country | Total Patients | CCM Patients | Mean Age of CCM Patients | CCM Men (%) | IF Patients | Mean Age of IF Patients | IF Men (%) | Healthy Controls | Mean Age of Healthy Controls | Controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| García-Álvarez A et al. | 2011 | Spain | 98 | 22 | 42.7 ± 9.6 | 45 | 32 | 36.8 ± 10.8 | 34 | 44 | 34 ± 8.5 | 41 |
| Nascimento CA et al. | 2013 | Brazil | 184 | 83 | 48 ± 8.7 | 53 | 69 | 45 ± 9 | 48 | 32 | 44 ± 7 | 44 |
| Barbosa M et al. | 2013 | Brazil | 116 | - | - | - | 78 | 44.7 ± 8.6 | 46 | 38 | 44 ± 9.2 | 58 |
| Gomes V et al. | 2016 | Brazil | 168 | 42 | 47 ± 8 | 38 | 83 | 44 ± 9 | 46 | 43 | 44 ± 7 | 49 |
| Lima MS 2 et al. | 2016 | Brazil | 42 | 13 | 53 ± 11.6 | 31 | 8 | 57 ± 7.5 | 13 | 21 | 50 ± 6.4 | 33 |
| Lima MS et al. | 2016 | Brazil | 105 | 39 | 55 ± 11 | 48.3 | 8 | 56 ± 7 | 12 | 58 | 37 ± 12 | 43 |
| Santos Junior et al. | 2019 | Brazil | 81 | 81 | 57 ± 11 | 59 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Echeverría LE et al. | 2020 | Colombia | 273 | 177 | 59 ± 11 | 55.37 | 96 | 49 ± 11 | 25.19 | - | - | - |
| Romano MM et al. | 2020 | Brazil | 65 | 20 | 53 ± 12 | 30 | 25 | 55 ± 12 | 60 | 20 | 48 ± 10 | 55 |
| Cianciulli TF et al. | 2020 | Argentina | 90 | - | - | - | 45 | 59 ± 9.9 | 41.2 | 45 | 57 ± 18.4 | 35.6 |
Baseline echocardiographic characteristics of patients assessed in the included studies and differences between the groups.
| Variables | CCM | IF | Healthy Controls | CCM vs. IF | IF vs. Controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age | 50.8 (43.8, 57.8) | 50.4 (45, 56) | 44.3 (38.5, 50.2) | 0.312 (−0.02, 0.64. I2 = 72%) | 0.391 (0.06, 0.72. I2= 72%) |
| Males proportion (%) | 49 (42, 56) | 39 (31, 48) | 44 (39, 50) | ||
| LVEF (%) | 58.4 (51.5, 65.4) | 63.3 (58.4, 68.2) | 64.8 (60.6, 68.9) | −1.169 (−1.88, −0.46. I2 = 83%) | 0.063 (−0.19, 0.32. I2 = 0%) |
| LAVI (ml/m2) | 33.3 (27.6, 38.8) | - | - | - | - |
| LAD (mm) | 35.8 (32.5, 39.2) | 34.5 (30.6, 38.5) | 34.6 (31.2, 37.9) | 0.608 (0.05, 1.17. I2 = 43%) | 0.115 (−0.29, 0.52. I2 = 9%) |
| LVD (mm) | 53.3 (50.8, 55.9) | 48.2 (43.9, 52.6) | 49.2 (45.9, 52.4) | 1.559 (0.45, 2.67. I2 = 92%) | 0.022 (−0.28, 0.32. I 2= 21%) |
| LVS (mm) | 34.7 (30.4, 38.9) | 30.4 (25.9, 34.8) | 30.3 (27.8, 32.8) | 1.106 (0.37, 1.84. I2 = 84%) | −0.030 (−0.39, 0.33. I2 = 42%) |
| E/e’ ratio | 8.2 (5.6, 10.9) | 7.1 (3.6, 10.5) | 6.6 (4.5, 8.7) | - | - |
| GLS (%) | −15.9 (−18.1, −13.7) | −19.9 (−21.2, −18.7) | −20.1 (−20.8, −19.3) | 1.253 (0.53, 1.98. I2 = 94%) | 0.197 (−0.19, 0.59. I2 = 80%) |
Figure 2Longitudinal strain bull’s eye plot patterns in each of the assessed groups.
Figure 3Meta-regression analyses revealed a significant association between (A) males proportion, (B) left ventricle ejection fraction, and (C) left indexed atrial volume with the global longitudinal strain value in patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy.
Figure 4Forest plots evaluating the differences in (A) global longitudinal strain between CCM and IF patients, (B) global longitudinal strain between IF patients and controls, (C) basal-inferoseptal strain, and (D) mid-inferoseptal strain between IF patients and controls.