Prognostic significance of incorporating exercise tissue doppler mitral annular early diastolic velocity in exercise diastolic dysfunction assessment.

BACKGROUND: The existing algorithm for defining exercise-induced diastolic dysfunction incorporates resting e' velocity as a surrogate of myocardial relaxation. The additive prognostic value of incorporating post-exercise e' velocity in definition of exercise-induced diastolic dysfunction is poorly studied. AIM: To define the additive prognostic value of post-exercise e' septal velocity in the assessment of exercise-induced diastolic dysfunction compared to the traditional approach. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1409 patients undergoing exercise treadmill echocardiography with available full set of diastolic variables. Doppler measures of diastolic function included resting septal e' velocity, post-exercise septal e' velocity, post-exercise E/e' ratio, and post-exercise tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity. Approaches incorporating resting septal e' velocity and post-exercise septal e' velocity were compared in defining exercise-induced diastolic dysfunction, and for association with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of study subjects was 56.3 ± 16.5 years and 791 (56%) patients were women. A total of 524 patients had disagreement between resting and post exercise septal e' velocities, and these values showed only weak agreement (kappa statistics: .28, P = .02). All categories of the traditional exercise-induced DD approach incorporating resting septal e' velocity witnessed reclassification when exercise septal e' velocity was used. When both approaches were compared, increased event rates were only evident when both approaches agreed on exercise-induced diastolic dysfunction (HR: 1.92, P < .001, 95% CI: 1.37-2.69). This association persisted after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching for covariates. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of post-exercise e' velocity into the set of variables defining exercise-induced diastolic dysfunction can improve the prognostic utility of diastolic function assessment.

A Comparative Assessment of Echocardiographic Parameters for Determining Primary Mitral Regurgitation Severity Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Reference Standard.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines suggest the use of several echocardiographic methods to assess mitral regurgitation severity using an integrated approach, without guidance as to the weighting of each parameter. The purpose of this multicenter prospective study was to evaluate the recommended echocardiographic parameters against a reference modality and develop and validate a weighting for each echocardiographic measure of mitral regurgitation severity. METHODS: This study included 112 patients who underwent evaluation with echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Echocardiographic parameters recommended by the ASE were included and compared with MRI-derived regurgitant volume (MRI-RV). RESULTS: Echocardiographic parameters that correlated best with MRI-RV were proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) radius (r = 0.65, P < .0001), PISA-derived effective regurgitant orifice area (r = 0.65, P < .0001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (r = 0.56, P < .0001), and PISA-derived regurgitant volume (r = 0.52, P < .0001). In the linear regression models PISA-derived effective regurgitant orifice area, PISA-derived regurgitant volume, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, and the presence of a flail leaflet independently predicted MRI-RV. CONCLUSION: Echocardiographic parameters of mitral regurgitation as recommended by the ASE had moderate correlations with MRI-RV. The best predictors of MRI-RV were PISA-derived effective regurgitant orifice area, PISA-derived regurgitant volume, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, and the presence of a flail leaflet, suggesting that these parameters should be weighted more heavily than other echocardiographic parameters in the application of the ASE-recommended integrated approach.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Antihypertensive Medication Use and Blood Pressure Control Among US Adults With Hypertension: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: A key to reduce and eradicate racial disparities in hypertension outcomes is to understand their causes. We aimed at evaluating racial differences in antihypertensive drug utilization patterns and blood pressure control by insurance status, age, sex, and presence of comorbidities. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 8796 hypertensive individuals ≥18 years of age were identified from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2012) in a repeated cross-sectional study. During the study period, all 3 racial groups (whites, blacks, and Hispanics) experienced substantial increase in hypertension treatment and control. The overall treatment rates were 73.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.6%-76.2%), 70.8% (95% CI, 68.6%-73.0%), and 60.7% (95% CI, 57.0%-64.3%) and hypertension control rates were 42.9% (95% CI, 40.5%-45.2%), 36.9% (95% CI, 34.7%-39.2%), and 31.2% (95% CI, 28.6%-33.9%) for whites, blacks, and Hispanics, respectively. When stratified by insurance status, blacks (odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.86] for insured and 0.59 [95% CI, 0.36-0.94] for uninsured) and Hispanics (odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.91] for insured and 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36-0.94] for uninsured) persistently had lower rates of hypertension control compared with whites. Racial disparities also persisted in subgroups stratified by age (≥60 and <60 years of age) and presence of comorbidities but worsened among patients <60 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Black and Hispanic patients had poorer hypertension control compared with whites, and these differences were more pronounced in younger and uninsured patients. Although black patients received more intensive antihypertensive therapy, Hispanics were undertreated. Future studies should further explore all aspects of these disparities to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: The decision to undergo mitral valve surgery is often made on the basis of echocardiographic criteria and clinical assessment. Recent changes in treatment guidelines recommending surgery in asymptomatic patients make the accurate assessment of mitral regurgitation (MR) severity even more important. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of MR severity using the degree of left ventricular (LV) remodeling after surgery as the reference standard. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter trial, MR severity was assessed in 103 patients using both echocardiography and MRI. Thirty-eight patients subsequently had isolated mitral valve surgery, and 26 of these had an additional MRI performed 5 to 7 months after surgery. The pre-surgical estimate of regurgitant severity was correlated with the postoperative decrease in LV end-diastolic volume. RESULTS: Agreement between MRI and echocardiographic estimates of MR severity was modest in the overall cohort (r = 0.6; p < 0.0001), and there was a poorer correlation in the subset of patients sent for surgery (r = 0.4; p = 0.01). There was a strong correlation between post-surgical LV remodeling and MR severity as assessed by MRI (r = 0.85; p < 0.0001), and no correlation between post-surgical LV remodeling and MR severity as assessed by echocardiography (r = 0.32; p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that MRI is more accurate than echocardiography in assessing the severity of MR. MRI should be considered in those patients when MR severity as assessed by echocardiography is influencing important clinical decisions, such as the decision to undergo MR surgery.

Prognostic Value of Stress Echocardiography in Patients Presenting with Syncope.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation for ischemia is appropriate in patients at risk for or with a history of coronary artery disease presenting with syncope. The aim of this study is to determine the prognostic value of stress echocardiography in patients presenting with syncope. METHODS: We examined our database of all patients undergoing stress echocardiography at our institution. Patients referred due to syncope were grouped as high risk based on any of the following: (1) known history of coronary artery disease, (2) left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, (3) moderate or severe mitral or aortic valve regurgitation, and (4) moderate mitral or aortic valve stenosis. The main outcomes were the presence of ischemia on stress imaging and all-cause mortality using the social security death index. RESULTS: A total of 225 patients were identified; mean age was 64.3 ± 14.5 years, the mean follow-up duration was 29.2 ± 13.8 months. There were 163 patients in the low-risk group and 62 patients in the high-risk group. On imaging, 7% of the overall cohort had ischemia. The low-risk group had 5 (3%) patients with ischemia and the high-risk group had 10 patients (16%) with ischemia (P < 0.01). The mortality rate was significantly higher in the high-risk group (3.99%/year vs. 1.02%/year; P = 0.02); this difference was not affected by the presence of ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with syncope as defined by appropriateness criteria and existing evidence carry a higher risk of ischemia and all-cause mortality. The presence of ischemia may not be predictive of long-term outcome in this group.