The differences between conventional lead, thin lead, and leadless pacemakers regarding effects on tricuspid regurgitation in the early phase.

PURPOSE: Trans-venous pacemaker leads are associated with worsening of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) after pacemaker implantation (PMI) in some cases. Recently, leadless pacemakers and thin ventricular pacemaker leads without a stylet lumen have become popular. However, the differences in the effects of these leads on TR are unclear. We investigated differences in the changes in TR in the early phase after PMI in patients with conventional leads, thin leads, and leadless pacemakers. METHODS: We enrolled 65 patients who underwent PMI (32 males, 79 ± 8 years), including 48 with trans-venous PMI (29 with conventional 6.0-Fr leads and 19 with 4.1-Fr thin leads) and 17 with leadless pacemakers. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and 1 month after PMI for assessment of conventional echocardiographic parameters and severity of TR by quantitative assessment. RESULTS: Atrial fibrillation was the most frequent indication for PMI in patients with leadless pacemakers (p = 0.015). In the before and 1 month after PMI comparison, left ventricular ejection fraction decreased after PMI only in the conventional lead group (p = 0.022). The TR effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) decreased post PMI in the leadless (p = 0.002) and thin lead groups (p = 0.001), but not in the conventional lead group (p = 0.596). The change in TR EROA was greater in the leadless and thin lead groups as compared with the conventional lead group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The decrease in TR EROA in the early phase after PMI differed according to the type of pacemaker lead. The thin lead might be beneficial for reduction of TR after PMI.

Clinical Significance and Prognostic Value of Novel Echocardiographic Index for the Severity of Mitral Regurgitation.

Background: Recently, the left ventricular early inflow-outflow index (LVEIO), calculated by dividing mitral E-wave velocity by the left ventricular outflow velocity time integral, has been proposed as a simple method for evaluating mitral regurgitation (MR). This study determined the optimal LVEIO threshold to assess severe MR with different etiologies and assessed its prognostic value. Methods and Results: The records of 18,692 consecutive patients who underwent echocardiography were reviewed. MR was classified into 4 groups: Grade 0/1, no, trivial, or mild MR; Grade 2, moderate MR; Grade 3, moderate to severe MR; and Grade 4, severe MR. The mean (±SD) LVEIO of Grades 0/1, 2, 3, and 4 was 3.6±1.4, 6.0±2.5, 7.4±3.1, and 9.5±2.8, respectively. An optimal LVEIO threshold of 5.4 was determined to distinguish moderate to severe or severe MR from non-severe MR (sensitivity 84%, specificity 91%). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed high mortality in the group with LVEIO ≥5.4 (P=0.009, hazard ratio 1.833). This was found only in primary MR when separate analyses were performed according to etiology. Multivariate analysis revealed that LVEIO was an independent predictor for all-cause death only in primary MR. Conclusions: Using appropriate thresholds, LVEIO is a simple and useful method to diagnose severe MR regardless of etiology. LVEIO can also be useful for predicting prognosis in primary MR.

Prognostic Value of Time Interval Between Mitral and Tricuspid Valve Opening in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: We used dual Doppler echocardiography to measure the time interval between the mitral and tricuspid valve opening (MO-TO time), which we expected would reflect the balance between left and right ventricular hemodynamics. Methods and Results: We prospectively enrolled 60 patients with heart failure (HF) and sinus rhythm. The MO-TO time was measured in addition to routine echocardiography parameters, invasive hemodynamic parameters and plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level in all patients. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the MO-TO time: MOP (mitral opening preceding tricuspid opening), and TOP (tricuspid opening preceding mitral opening) groups. We followed up the predefined adverse outcomes (cardiovascular [CV] death and hospitalization due to worsening HF) for 1 year. Pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) were higher in the MOP than in the TOP group (P<0.001; P<0.001, respectively). The probability of an adverse CV outcome was higher in the MOP than in the TOP group (log-rank test; P=0.002). Addition of MOP improved the predictive power of univariate predictors (mitral E/A ratio and BNP) in the bivariate Cox analysis (P=0.017, P=0.024, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: MOP reflects pulmonary hypertension caused by left heart disease and has prognostic value in predicting adverse CV events in patients with HF.

Correlates and Prognostic Values of Appearance of L Wave in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved vs. Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Mid-diastolic mitral forward flow (L wave) is occasionally detected in heart failure (HF), but its correlates and prognostic value are still unknown, particularly in light of the type of HF, that is, HF with preserved or with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFrEF). Methods and Results: Of 151 patients with HF, L wave was observed in 23 of 82 HFrEF patients and in 25 of 69 HFpEF patients. Mitral early diastolic velocity (E), the ratio of E to mitral annulus velocity, and left atrial volume index were greater in the patients with L wave than in those without L wave in both subsets. Left ventricular (LV) mass index and relative wall thickness were greater in the patients with L wave than in those without L wave in the HFpEF group, but there was no difference in either parameter in the HFrEF group. Prognosis was poorer in those with L wave than in those without L wave both in the HFrEF and HFpEF groups. CONCLUSIONS: Appearance of L wave is associated with the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction, but there was a difference in LV geometrical correlates of the appearance of L wave between the HFpEF and HFrEF groups. Detection of L wave is suggestive of poor prognosis independent of LVEF in HF.