Myocardial multilayer strain does not provide additional value for detection of myocardial viability assessed by SPECT imaging over and beyond standard strain.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of multilayer strain analysis to the assessment of myocardial viability (MV) through the comparison of both speckle tracking echocardiography and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging. We also intended to determine which segmental longitudinal strain (LS) cutoff value would be optimal to discriminate viable myocardium. METHODS: We included 47 patients (average age: 61 ± 11 years) referred to our cardiac imaging center for MV evaluation. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography with measures of LS, SPECT, and coronary angiography. RESULTS: In all, 799 segments were analyzed. We correlated myocardial tracer uptake by SPECT with sub-endocardial, sub-epicardial, and mid-segmental LS values with r = .514 P < .0001, r = .501 P < .0001, and r = .520 P < .0001, respectively. The measurements of each layer strain (sub-endocardial, sub-epicardial, and mid) had the same performance to predict MV viability as defined by SPECT with areas under curve of 0.819 [0.778-0.861, P < .0001], 0.809 [0.764-0.854, P < .0001], and 0.817 [0.773-0.860, P < .0001], respectively. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis yielded a cutoff value of -6.5% for mid-segmental LS with a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 76% to predict segmental MV as defined by SPECT. CONCLUSIONS: Multilayer strain analysis does not evaluate MV with more accuracy than standard segmental LS analysis.

Predictive factors for long-term mortality in miscellaneous cardiogenic shock: Protective role of beta-blockers at admission.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in intensive care medicine, management of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains difficult and imperfect, with high mortality rates, regardless of aetiology. Predictive data regarding long-term mortality rates in patients presenting CS are sparse. AIM: To describe prognostic factors for long-term mortality in CS of different aetiologies. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-five patients with CS admitted to our tertiary centre between January 2013 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Mortality was recorded in December 2016. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to determine predictors of long-term mortality. RESULTS: Most patients were male (72.7%), with an average age of 64±16 years and a history of cardiomyopathy (63.5%), mainly ischaemic (42.3%). Leading causes of CS were myocardial infarction (35.3%), decompensated heart failure (34.2%) and cardiac arrest (20.7%). Long-term mortality was 62.5%. After multivariable analysis, previous use of beta-blockers (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.89; P=0.02) and coronary angiography exploration at admission (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86; P=0.02) were associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality. Conversely, age (HR 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.04; P<0.001), catecholamine support (HR 1.45 for each additional agent, 95% CI 1.20-1.75; P<0.001) and renal replacement therapy (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09-2.55; P=0.02) were associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term mortality rates in CS remain high, reaching 60% at 1-year follow-up. Previous use of beta-blockers and coronary angiography exploration at admission were associated with better long-term survival, while age, renal replacement therapy and the use of catecholamines appeared to worsen the prognosis, and should lead to intensification of CS management.

Who are patients classified within the new terminology of heart failure from the 2016 ESC guidelines?

AIMS: The main terminology used to describe heart failure (HF) is based on measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). LVEF in the range of 40-49% was recently defined as HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The purpose of our study was to assess the clinical profile and prognosis of patients with HF according to this new classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 482 patients referred for HF were retrospectively included over a period of 1 year. There were 258 (53%), 115 (24%), and 109 (23%) patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), HFmrEF, and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), respectively. Patient age increased, whereas left block bundle branch, brain natriuretic peptide level, and the use of beta-blocker and furosemide decreased from HFrEF to HFpEF. After adjustment for the age, patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF were more likely to have NYHA stage 2 dyspnea, had a higher systolic blood pressure, were less likely to have spironolactone, had lower furosemide dose, and had lower haemoglobin than those with HFrEF. Cardiovascular risk factors and medical history were similar in the three groups of patients. There was a 33% death rate after a mean follow-up of 32.2 ± 14.3 months. The survival was the same among patients whatever the group of HF (P = 0.884). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF share the same cardiovascular risk factors, medical history, and prognosis. Patients with HFmrEF have a different clinical profile, which is nearly the same as patients with HFpEF, except for sex. These results question the relevance of this new classification of HF to stimulate research into this new group of patients.