CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction Treatment of higher-risk patients with an indication for revascularization: evolution within the field of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention Optimal Stenting Technique for Complex Coronary Lesions Intracoronary Imaging-Guided Pre-Dilation, Stent Sizing, and Post-Dilation Non-cardiac surgery in patients with coronary artery disease: risk evaluation and periprocedural management Select Drug-Drug Interactions With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Rare Genetic Variants Associated With Sudden Cardiac Death in Adults Best Practices for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Diagnostic Angiography and Intervention An International Consensus Paper Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years

Original Research2017 Aug 22;70(8):942-954.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Geometry as a Confounder When Assessing Ventricular Systolic Function: Comparison Between Ejection Fraction and Strain

Stokke TM, Hasselberg NE, Remme EW et al. Keywords: left ventricular geometry; mathematical modeling; myocardial strain

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and reduced myocardial strain are reported in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and more.


OBJECTIVES - The authors performed a combined mathematical and echocardiographic study to understand the inconsistencies between EF and strains.


METHODS - An analytical equation showing the relationship between EF and the 4 parameters, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), wall thickness, and short-axis diameter, was derived from an elliptical LV model. The equation was validated by measuring the 4 parameters by echocardiography in 100 subjects with EF ranging from 16% to 72% and comparing model-predicted EF with measured EF. The effect of the different parameters on EF was explored in the model and compared with findings in the patients.


RESULTS - Calculated EF had very good agreement with measured EF (r = 0.95). The model showed that GCS contributes more than twice as much to EF than GLS. A significant reduction of GLS could be compensated by a small increase of GCS or wall thickness or reduced diameter. The model further demonstrated how EF can be maintained in ventricles with increased wall thickness or reduced diameter, despite reductions in both longitudinal and circumferential shortening. This was consistent with similar EF in 20 control subjects and 20 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with increased wall thickness and reductions in both circumferential and longitudinal shortening (all p < 0.01).


CONCLUSIONS - Reduced deformation despite preserved EF can be explained through geometric factors. Due to geometric confounders, strain better reflects systolic function in patients with preserved EF.


Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.