Unidimensional Longitudinal Strain: A Simple Approach for the Assessment of Longitudinal Myocardial Deformation by Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Impaired left ventricular (LV) longitudinal function (LF) is a known predictor of cardiac events in patients with heart failure, but two-dimensional strain imaging, the reference method to measure myocardial deformation, is not always feasible or available. Therefore, reliable and reproducible alternatives are needed. The aim of the present study was to evaluate unidimensional longitudinal strain (ULS) as a simple echocardiographic parameter for the assessment of LV LF. METHODS: Two hundred two patients with dilated cardiomyopathy who had their first presentation in the authors' cardiology department, as well as the same number of age- and gender-matched control subjects, were prospectively included in this study. ULS was compared with global longitudinal strain (GLS), the current gold standard for LV LF assessment by echocardiography. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the prognostic value of ULS. RESULTS: LV LF was higher in the control group compared with patients: GLS -19.5 ± 1.7% versus -12.6 ± 4.8% and ULS -16.3 ± 1.5% versus -10.2 ± 3.9% (P < .001 for each). Correlation between ULS and GLS was excellent (r = 0.94), while Bland-Altman plots revealed lower values for ULS (bias -2.76%, limits of agreement ±3.31%). During a mean follow-up time of 39 months, the combined end point of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for acute cardiac decompensation was reached by 28 patients (13.9%). GLS (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34; P < .001) and ULS (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; P < .001) had comparable prognostic impact on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: ULS might be an alternative echocardiographic method for the assessment of LV LF, with similar diagnostic and prognostic value compared with GLS.

Reliability of noninvasive assessment of systolic pulmonary artery pressure by Doppler echocardiography compared to right heart catheterization: analysis in a large patient population.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is an important marker in cardiovascular disorders, being closely associated with morbidity and mortality. Noninvasive assessment by Doppler echocardiography is recommended by current guidelines. So far, the reliability of this method has been assessed only in small studies with contradictory results. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the reliability of noninvasive PAP assessment by Doppler echocardiography compared to invasive measurements in a large patient population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed data from a large tertiary cardiology department over 6 years in order to compare invasively measured PAP to estimated PAP from echocardiography examinations. N=15 516 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and n=1695 patients with timely matched examinations (within 5 days) were analyzed. In n=1221 (72%) patients, pulmonary hypertension (PH) was diagnosed invasively (postcapillary PH: n=1122 [66%]; precapillary PH: n=99 [6%]). Systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) was 45.3±15.5 mm Hg by Doppler echocardiography and 47.4±16.4 mm Hg by right heart catheterization. Pearson's correlation coefficient was r=0.87 (P<0.0001). Mean right atrial pressure (RAP) was 12.0±5.7 mm Hg by right heart catheterization and was estimated to be 12.1±6.6 mm Hg by echocardiography (r=0.82, P<0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -2.0 mm Hg for sPAP (95% limits of agreement -18.1 to +14.1 mm Hg) and +1.0 mm Hg for RAP (95% limits of agreement +0.1 to +1.9 mm Hg). Noninvasive diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension with Doppler echocardiography had a good sensitivity (87%) and specificity (79%), positive and negative predictive values (91% and 70%), as well as accuracy (85%) for a sPAP cut-off value of 36 mm Hg (AUC 0.91, P<0.001, CI 0.90 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Doppler echocardiography proved to be a reliable method for the assessment of sPAP, being well suited to establish the noninvasive diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension in patients with cardiac diseases.

Assessment of left ventricular volumes with echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: real-life evaluation of standard versus new semiautomatic methods.

BACKGROUND: Routine quantitative assessment of left ventricular (LV) volumes with echocardiography is hindered by time-consuming methods requiring a manual trace of the LV cavity from two apical two-dimensional planes. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate faster new semiautomatic echocardiographic methods that could represent a feasible alternative for the assessment of LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in clinical practice. METHODS: Two semiautomatic methods, the automated EF (Auto-EF) for two-dimensional echocardiography and the 4D Auto LVQ tool for three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), were compared with the biplane modified Simpson's method and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in 47 patients. To evaluate the accuracy of volumetry, additional in vitro measurements using water-filled latex balloons were performed with both modalities. RESULTS: Results of balloon volumetry by echocardiography and CMR measurements were in good agreement with real balloon volumes. The mean LV EF was 45 ± 11% by Auto-EF, 45 ± 11% by 3DE, 48 ± 11% by Simpson's method, and 54 ± 12% by CMR. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses showed good associations for semiautomatic methods with Simpson's method (Auto-EF, r = 0.85, bias = 3%, limits of agreement [LOA] = 12%; 3DE, r = 0.79, bias = 3%, LOA = 14%), as well as with CMR (Auto-EF, r = 0.74, bias = 9%, LOA = 17%; 3DE, r = 0.73, bias = 9%, LOA = 17%). Intra- and interobserver variability were 6% and 12% with Auto-EF and 8% and 11% with 3DE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Good correlations between semiautomatic echocardiographic parameters for assessment of LV volumes and EF could be observed when compared with Simpson's method or CMR. However, intertechnique agreement analysis of absolute LV volumes revealed considerable differences, with significant underestimation of volumes and EF with respect to CMR.

Dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography for the assessment of outcome in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease. Are the two imaging modalities comparable?

PURPOSE: To compare the value of Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) with that provided by Dobutamine Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (DCMR) for the non-invasive risk stratification of patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Patients with suspected or known CAD underwent either DSE or DCMR using the same standardized protocol. Patient matching was then performed retrospectively for age, gender and risk factors. Outcome data including cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction (defined as hard cardiac events) and 'late' revascularization performed >90days after the diagnostic procedures were collected during at least 6months. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available in 1852 patients who completed either DSE (n=884) or DCMR (n=884) during a mean follow-up duration of 4.1±2.4 and 3.9±1.9years, respectively (p=NS). Matched patients exhibited an overall high risk profile (69±9years; 69% male, 70% history of CAD and 26% diabetes mellitus in both groups). Using multivariable analysis, both modalities successfully identified patients with inducible ischemia at higher risk for subsequent hard cardiac events, surpassing the value of conventional risk factors like age, male gender and diabetes (HR=9.2; 95%CI=5.6-14.9 for DCMR versus 2.5; 95%CI=1.7-3.7 for DSE). By testing for interaction the predictive capacity of DCMR was higher than that provided by DSE (p=0.02). Patients with negative DCMR exhibited lower event rates compared to those with negative DSE (annual hard cardiac event rate of 0.8% versus 3.2%, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: DSE & DCMR aid the risk stratification of CAD patients. However, inducible WMA during DCMR are associated with a higher risk for subsequent cardiac events. Patients with negative DCMR on the other hand, exhibited a lower event rate compared to those with negative DSE.