Search

Aortic stenosis (AS) and mitral regurgitation (MR) result in different patterns of left ventricular remodeling and hypertrophy. We characterized left ventricular wall stress (LVWS) profiles in pressure and volume-overloaded systems, examined the relationship between baseline LVWS and cardiac remodeling, and assessed the acute effects of valve intervention on LVWS using invasive pressures combined with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging measures of left ventricular volumes/mass. A total of 47 patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and 15 patients with severe MR undergoing MitraClip (MC) underwent a 6-minute walk test (6MWT), transthoracic echocardiogram, and CMR before their procedures. Catheters in the left ventricle were used to record hemodynamic changes before and after valve/clip deployment. This was integrated with CMR data to calculate LVWS before and after intervention. The TAVR group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic LVWS post procedure (median 24.7 Pa [IQR: 14 Pa] pre vs median 17.3 Pa [IQR: 12 Pa] post; P < 0.001). The MC group demonstrated significant reductions in diastolic LVWS (median 6.4 Pa [IQR: 5 Pa] pre vs median 4.3 Pa [IQR: 4.1 Pa] post; P = 0.021) with no significant change in systolic LVWS (30.6 ±1.61 pre vs 33 ±2.47 Pa post; P = 0.16). There was an inverse correlation between baseline systolic LVWS and 6MWT in the TAVR group (r = −0.31; P = 0.04). TAVR results in significant reductions in systolic LVWS acutely. MC results in significant reductions in diastolic LVWS. Higher baseline systolic LVWS in TAVR is associated with shorter 6MWT suggesting that in AS, LVWS may be a useful marker of early decompensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims In patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), the mortality benefit of a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been challenged. Left ventricular (LV) scar identified by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is associated with a high risk of malignant arrhythmia in NICM. We aimed to determine the impact of LV scar on the mortality benefit from a primary prevention ICD in NICM. Methods and results We recruited 452 consecutive heart failure patients [New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II/III] with NICM and LV ejection fraction ≤35% from a state-wide CMR service. All patients fulfilled European Society of Cardiology guidelines for primary prevention ICD implantation; however, the decision to implant was at the treating physician's discretion. Baseline clinical and CMR data were recorded prospectively and heart failure mortality risk (MAGGIC score) was calculated. The primary study outcome measurement was all-cause mortality based on presence or absence of ICD, stratified by LV scar. Median follow-up was 37.9 months and there was no difference in MAGGIC score between those who did and did not receive a primary prevention ICD (19.30 ± 5.46 vs. 18.90 ± 5.67, P  = 0.50). In patients without LV scar, ICD implantation was not associated with improved mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53–2.78, P  = 0.64]. In patients with LV scar, ICD implantation was independently associated with reduced mortality (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26–0.77, P  = 0.003). Conclusions In patients with NICM, primary prevention ICD implantation is only associated with reduced mortality in patients with LV scar. This may enable more effective selection of NICM patients for ICD implantation compared with current guidelines. View large Download slide View large Download slide [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Central blood pressure (BP) can be estimated noninvasively by analyzing brachial artery waveforms. In this study, our aim was to assess the validity of a brachial cuff-based (suprasystolic) technique for estimating central BP (CBPestimated) by comparison with invasive aortic BP (CBPinvasive). METHODS Eighty-four simultaneous CBPestimated (Pulsecor R7.0) and CBPinvasive measures were recorded in 47 patients (aged 63 ±10 years, 62% male) undergoing coronary angiography. Measures were captured at baseline and acutely following intravenous glyceryl trinitrate (GTN; 100-200 µg). Mean CBPinvasive systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were compared with CBPestimated SBP and DBP calibrated with brachial SBP and DBP recorded from the Pulsecor device. To test validity of the central BP algorithm, measures of CBPestimated SBP were also compared with CBPinvasive SBP following recalibration with invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) and DBP. RESULTS At baseline, mean difference ± standard deviation between CBPestimated SBP and CBPinvasive SBP was -7±9mm Hg (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.86; P < 0.001) with similar underestimation post-GTN (-6 ± 9 mm Hg; ICC = 0.90; P < 0.001). Recalibration of CBPestimated SBP with invasive MAP and DBP resulted in closer mean difference to CBPinvasive SBP (-2±7mm Hg; ICC = 0.95; P < 0.001) at baseline but not post-GTN (-6±7mmHg;ICC = 0.95;P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The Pulsecor algorithm to derive central BP has acceptable validity when calibrated with invasive pressures. However, accuracy is compromised when noninvasive brachial cuff BP calibration is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to differentiate nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with incidental myocardial infarction (NICM with incidental MI) from ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) by integrating left ventricular (LV) geometric indices and ischemic late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), obtained from cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging., Materials and Methods: All subjects were studied on a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner. All patients had an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% with LV dilation. LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LVEDV index (LVEDVi), LVEF, the number and distribution of ischemic LGE segments, and ratios of volumetric and functional indices to ischemic LGE segments were determined. Logistic regression was used to detect the independent predictor of ICM. Receiver operating characteristic analysis differentiated NICM with incidental MI from ICM., Results: Of a total of 63 patients enrolled, 45 patients had ICM, and 18 patients had NICM with incidental MI. Both groups had similar LVEF. Compared with ICM, NICM with incidental MI had more LV dilation, whereas ICM had more ischemic LGE segments. A higher number of ischamic LGE segments remained an independent predictor of ICM (odds ratio: 18.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.64-201.34, P=0.018). The optimal cut-off value for detecting NICM with incidental MI is the ratio of LVEDVi to the number of ischemic LGE segments over 25 mL/m2/segment (sensitivity 100%, specificity 91%, P<0.0001)., Conclusion: Patients with NICM with incidental MI can be reliably distinguished from ICM using the ratio of LVEDVi divided by the number of ischemic LGE segments. This technique may improve diagnosis and help aid management of patients with cardiomyopathy and coexistent coronary artery disease., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)