Search

Objective: To explore the differences of risk stratification of very high-risk or extreme high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) and the attainment rates of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) management targets evaluated by three different criteria, and the causal attributions of these differences. Methods: Patients with ASCVD were consecutively enrolled from January 1 to December 31 in 2019, and were evaluated for very high-risk or extreme high-risk and LDL-C goal attainment rates with 2018 American guideline on the management of blood cholesterol (2018AG), 2019 China Cholesterol Education Program (CCEP) Expert Advice for the management of dyslipidemias (2019EA) and 2020 Chinese expert consensus on lipid management of very high-risk ASCVD patients(2020EC), respectively. The causal attributions of the differences in attainment rates were analyzed as well. Results: A total of 1 864 ASCVD patients were included in this study. According to 2018AG, 2019EA and 2020EC, the proportions of the patients with very high-risk or extreme high-risk were 59.4%, 90.7%, and 65.6%, respectively. The absolute LDL-C target attainment rates were 37.2%, 15.7%, and 13.7%, respectively, the differences between each two rates were statistically significant (all P <0.001). As to the differences in attainment rates between 2020EC and 2018AG, 61.5% were due to the different LDL-C goal attainment values and 38.5% were caused by the different risk stratifications, while for the differences between 2020EC and 2019EA attainment rates, different LDL-C goal attainment values were responsible for 13.2%, and different risk stratifications were responsible for 86.8% of the differences. Conclusions: There are significant differences in the proportions and LDL-C attainment rates among the three different criteria for very high-risk or extreme high-risk ASCVD. 2020EC showed a moderate proportion of patients with extreme high-risk, and had the lowest LDL-C attainment rate. The differences between 2020EC and 2018AG are mainly due to the LDL-C target values, and the differences between 2020EC and 2019EA are mainly caused by the risk stratifications.

Objective: To explore the clinical value of quantitatively assessment of left ventricular strain in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR)-feature tracking (CMR-FT) technique. Methods: In this retrospective and observation study, patients with single CTO, who underwent CMR examination in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from November 2014 to January 2019, were selected as case group (CTO group), and those without cardiovascular diseases defined by echocardiography, electrocardiogram (ECG) and clinical history and with normal CMR results were selected as healthy control group (control group). General clinical data including age, gender, discharge diagnosis, and the examination results of echocardiography and ECG were obtained from the electronic medical record system. Two-dimensional CMR-FT was applied to measure left ventricle (LV) global peak radial, circumferential, and longitudinal strains (GPRS, GPCS and GPLS, respectively), and the regional myocardial strain in the target vessel area of CTO was analyzed. Grayscale thresholds of 5 standard deviations (SDs) were used to quantify late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Patients with CTOs were divided into infract size>10% group and infarct size≤10% group, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≥50% group and LVEF<50% group, respectively. The differences between various groups were compared. Results: There were 52 patients in CTO group (34 males, age (54.1±11.7) years, body mass index (BMI) (26.2±2.5)kg/m 2 ) and 30 patients in control group (14 males, age(51.6±12.3)years, BMI (25.6±3.3)kg/m 2 ). There was no significant difference in age, gender, and BMI between the two groups (all P >0.05). LVEF, GPRS, GPCS and GPLS were significantly lower in CTO group than in control group (all P <0.05), left ventricular volume (LVEDV) was similar between the two groups ( P >0.05). Among the patients with CTO, there were 26 patients with infarct size>10% and 26 patients with infarct size≤10%. GPRS, GPCS and GPLS were significantly lower (all P <0.05), while LVEF and LVEDV were similar in CTO patients with infarct size≤10% as compared to control group (both P >0.05). LVEF, GPRS, GPCS and GPLS were significantly lower (all P <0.05), while LVEDV was similar in CTO patients with infarct size>10% ( P >0.05) as compared to control group. GPRS and GPCS were significantly lower (both P <0.05), while LVEF, LVEDV and GPLS were similar in CTO patients with infarct size>10% as compared to infarct size≤10% group. There were 40 subjects in LVEF≥50% group and 12 subjects in LVEF<50% group. Compared with the control group, GPCS and GPLS of CTO patients were significantly lower in LVEF≥50% group and LVEF<50% group (all P <0.01), LVEF and LVEDV was similar in CTO patients with LVEF≥50% (both P >0.05), but LVEF was lower and LVEDV was larger in LVEF<50% group (both P <0.05). The GPRS, GPCS, GPLS and LVEF of CTO patients in LVEF ≥ 50% group were higher than those in LVEF<50% group (all P <0.0l), and the myocardial infarction size was smaller than that in LVEF reduced group ( P <0.0l), but there was no significant difference in LVEDV between the two groups ( P =0.07). In the CTO group, there were 21 patients with left anterior descending artery (LAD) occlusion and 126 segments supplied by the target vessels. The peak radial strain (PRS), circumferential strain (PCS) and longitudinal strain (PLS) in the blood supply area were lower than those in the control group (all P <0 01). In 7 patients with left circumflex artery (LCX) occlusion, the number of myocardial segments supplied by the target vessels was 35, and the PRS, PCS and PLS in the target vessel supply area were lower than those in the control group (all P <0 05). In 24 patients with right coronary artery (RCA) occlusion, the number of myocardial segments supplied by the target vessels was 120, and the PRS, PCS and PLS in the target vessel supply area were lower than those in the control group (all P <0.01). Among the 126 segments in 21 patients with LAD CTO, 91 (72.2%) segments had infarct size≤25%, 17 (13.5%) segments had infarct size between 26%-50%, 11 segments (8.7%) had infarct size between 51%-75%, and 7 (5.6%) segments had infarct size between 76%-100%. Among the 35 segments in 7 patients with LCX CTO, 31 (88.6%) segments had infarct size≤25%, and 4 (11.4%) segments had infarct size between 26%-75%. Among the 120 segments in 24 patients with RCA CTO, 96 (80.0%) segments had infarct size≤25%, 11 (9.2%) segments had infarct size between 26%-50%, 8 (6.7%) segments had infarct size between 51%-75%, and 5 segments (4.2%) had infarct size between 76%-100%. Conclusions: In this study with single CTO, although the LVEF is preserved in the majority of the patients, the left ventricular global and regional strain values are significantly decreased. The larger the infarct size, the greater the impact on radial and circumferential motion, reflecting the early impairment of left ventricular function in these patients.