Mechanical dyssynchrony as a selection criterion for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Design of the AMEND-CRT trial.

AIMS: One third of patients do not improve after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Septal flash (SF) and apical rocking (ApRock) are deformation patterns observed on echocardiography in most patients eligible for CRT. These markers of mechanical dyssynchrony have been associated to improved outcome after CRT in observational studies and may be useful to better select patients. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether the current guideline criteria for selecting patients for CRT should be modified and include SF and ApRock to improve therapy success rate, reduce excessive costs and prevent exposure to device-related complications in patients who would not benefit from CRT. METHODS: The AMEND-CRT trial is a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, sham-controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. The trial will include 578 patients scheduled for CRT according to the 2021 ESC guidelines who satisfy all inclusion criteria. The randomization is performed 1:1 to an active control arm ('guideline arm') or an experimental arm ('echo arm'). All participants receive a device, but in the echo arm, CRT is activated only when SF or ApRock or both are present. The outcome of both arms will be compared after 1 year. The primary outcome measures are the average change in left ventricular end-systolic volume and patient outcome assessed using a modified Packer Clinical Composite Score. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this trial will redefine the role of echocardiography in CRT and potentially determine which patients with heart failure and a prolonged QRS duration should receive CRT, especially in patients who currently have a class IIa or class IIb recommendation.

Evaluation of left ventricular filling pressure by echocardiography in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is widely used to evaluate left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients suspected of heart failure. For patients in sinus rhythm, a combination of several echocardiographic parameters can differentiate between normal and elevated LV filling pressure with good accuracy. However, there is no established echocardiographic approach for the evaluation of LV filling pressure in patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of the present study was to determine if a combination of several echocardiographic and clinical parameters may be used to evaluate LV filling pressure in patients with atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: In a multicentre study of 148 atrial fibrillation patients, several echocardiographic parameters were tested against invasively measured LV filling pressure as the reference method. No single parameter had sufficiently strong association with LV filling pressure to be recommended for clinical use. Based on univariate regression analysis in the present study, and evidence from existing literature, we developed a two-step algorithm for differentiation between normal and elevated LV filling pressure, defining values ≥ 15 mmHg as elevated. The parameters in the first step included the ratio between mitral early flow velocity and septal mitral annular velocity (septal E/e'), mitral E velocity, deceleration time of E, and peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity. Patients who could not be classified in the first step were tested in a second step by applying supplementary parameters, which included left atrial reservoir strain, pulmonary venous systolic/diastolic velocity ratio, and body mass index. This two-step algorithm classified patients as having either normal or elevated LV filling pressure with 75% accuracy and with 85% feasibility. Accuracy in EF ≥ 50% and EF < 50% was similar (75% and 76%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation, no single echocardiographic parameter was sufficiently reliable to be used clinically to identify elevated LV filling pressure. An algorithm that combined several echocardiographic parameters and body mass index, however, was able to classify patients as having normal or elevated LV filling pressure with moderate accuracy and high feasibility.

The assessment of left ventricular diastolic function: guidance and recommendations from the British Society of Echocardiography.

Impairment of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function is common amongst those with left heart disease and is associated with significant morbidity. Given that, in simple terms, the ventricle can only eject the volume with which it fills and that approximately one half of hospitalisations for heart failure (HF) are in those with normal/'preserved' left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Bianco et al. in JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 13:258-271, 2020. 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.035), where abnormalities of ventricular filling are the cause of symptoms, it is clear that the assessment of left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) is crucial for understanding global cardiac function and for identifying the wider effects of disease processes. Invasive methods of measuring LV relaxation and filling pressures are considered the gold-standard for investigating diastolic function. However, the high temporal resolution of trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE) with widely validated and reproducible measures available at the patient's bedside and without the need for invasive procedures involving ionising radiation have established echocardiography as the primary imaging modality. The comprehensive assessment of LVDF is therefore a fundamental element of the standard TTE (Robinson et al. in Echo Res Pract7:G59-G93, 2020. 10.1530/ERP-20-0026). However, the echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function is complex. In the broadest and most basic terms, ventricular diastole comprises an early filling phase when blood is drawn, by suction, into the ventricle as it rapidly recoils and lengthens following the preceding systolic contraction and shortening. This is followed in late diastole by distension of the compliant LV when atrial contraction actively contributes to ventricular filling. When LVDF is normal, ventricular filling is achieved at low pressure both at rest and during exertion. However, this basic description merely summarises the complex physiology that enables the diastolic process and defines it according to the mechanical method by which the ventricles fill, overlooking the myocardial function, properties of chamber compliance and pressure differentials that determine the capacity for LV filling. Unlike ventricular systolic function where single parameters are utilised to define myocardial performance (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS)), the assessment of diastolic function relies on the interpretation of multiple myocardial and blood-flow velocity parameters, along with left atrial (LA) size and function, in order to diagnose the presence and degree of impairment. The echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function is therefore multifaceted and complex, requiring an algorithmic approach that incorporates parameters of myocardial relaxation/recoil, chamber compliance and function under variable loading conditions and the intra-cavity pressures under which these processes occur. This guideline outlines a structured approach to the assessment of diastolic function and includes recommendations for the assessment of LV relaxation and filling pressures. Non-routine echocardiographic measures are described alongside guidance for application in specific circumstances. Provocative methods for revealing increased filling pressure on exertion are described and novel and emerging modalities considered. For rapid access to the core recommendations of the diastolic guideline, a quick-reference guide (additional file 1) accompanies the main guideline document. This describes in very brief detail the diastolic investigation in each patient group and includes all algorithms and core reference tables.

Non-invasive myocardial work in aortic stenosis: validation and improvement in left ventricular pressure estimation.

AIMS: The non-invasive myocardial work index (MWI) has been validated in patients without aortic stenosis (AS). A thorough assessment of methodological limitations is warranted before this index can be applied to patients with AS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We simultaneously measured left ventricular pressure (LVP) by using a micromanometer-tipped catheter and obtained echocardiograms in 20 patients with severe AS. We estimated LVP curves and calculated pressure-strain loops using three different models: (i) the model validated in patients without AS; (ii) the same model, but with pressure at the aortic valve opening (AVO) adjusted to diastolic cuff pressure; and (iii) a new model based on the invasive measurements from patients with AS. Valvular events were determined by echocardiography. Peak LVP was estimated as the sum of the mean aortic transvalvular gradient and systolic cuff pressure. In same-beat comparisons between invasive and estimated LVP curves, Model 1 significantly overestimated early systolic pressure by 61 ± 5 mmHg at AVO compared with Models 2 and 3. However, the average correlation coefficients between estimated and invasive LVP traces were excellent for all models, and the overestimation had limited influence on MWI, with excellent correlation (r = 0.98, P < 0.001) and good agreement between the MWI calculated with estimated (all models) and invasive LVP. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the validity of the non-invasive MWI in patients with AS. The accuracy of estimated LVP curves improved when matching AVO to the diastolic pressure in the original model, mirroring that of the AS-specific model. This may sequentially enhance the accuracy of regional MWI assessment.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension. METHODS: HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. RESULTS: For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Identifies Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with an Assessment of Septal Scar and Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony.

Background: The response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) depends on septal viability and correction of abnormal septal motion. This study investigates if cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a single modality can identify CRT responders with combined imaging of pathological septal motion (septal flash) and septal scar. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter, observational study of 136 CRT recipients, septal scar was assessed using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (n = 127) and septal flash visually from cine CMR sequences. The primary endpoint was CRT response, defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume with echocardiography after 6 months. The secondary endpoint was heart transplantation or death of any cause assessed after 39 ± 13 months. Results: Septal scar and septal flash were independent predictors of CRT response in multivariable analysis (both p < 0.001), while QRS duration and morphology were not. The combined approach of septal scar and septal flash predicted CRT response with an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.94) and was a strong predictor of long-term survival without heart transplantation (hazard ratio 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10-0.79). The accuracy of the approach was similar in the subgroup with intermediate (130-150 ms) QRS duration. The combined approach was superior to septal scar and septal flash alone (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The combined assessment of septal scar and septal flash using CMR as a single-image modality identifies CRT responders with high accuracy and predicts long-term survival.

Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 1-imaging before and during device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC.

More than 500 000 cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are implanted in the European Society of Cardiology countries each year. The role of cardiovascular imaging in patients being considered for CIED is distinctly different from imaging in CIED recipients. In the former group, imaging can help identify specific or potentially reversible causes of heart block, the underlying tissue characteristics associated with malignant arrhythmias, and the mechanical consequences of conduction delays and can also aid challenging lead placements. On the other hand, cardiovascular imaging is required in CIED recipients for standard indications and to assess the response to device implantation, to diagnose immediate and delayed complications after implantation, and to guide device optimization. The present clinical consensus statement (Part 1) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients undergoing implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the use of imaging in patient selection and during the implantation procedure and also underlines gaps in evidence in the field. The role of imaging after CIED implantation is discussed in the second document (Part 2).

Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 2-imaging after device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improve quality of life and prolong survival, but there are additional considerations for cardiovascular imaging after implantation-both for standard indications and for diagnosing and guiding management of device-related complications. This clinical consensus statement (part 2) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients after implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the role and optimal use of various cardiac imaging modalities in patients with suspected CIED-related complications and also discusses CRT optimization, the safety of magnetic resonance imaging in CIED carriers, and describes the role of chest radiography in assessing CIED type, position, and complications. The role of imaging before and during CIED implantation is discussed in a companion document (part 1).

Mechanical Dyssynchrony Combined with Septal Scarring Reliably Identifies Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background and aim: The presence of mechanical dyssynchrony on echocardiography is associated with reverse remodelling and decreased mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Contrarily, myocardial scar reduces the effect of CRT. This study investigated how well a combined assessment of different markers of mechanical dyssynchrony and scarring identifies CRT responders. Methods: In a prospective multicentre study of 170 CRT recipients, septal flash (SF), apical rocking (ApRock), systolic stretch index (SSI), and lateral-to-septal (LW-S) work differences were assessed using echocardiography. Myocardial scarring was quantified using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) or excluded based on a coronary angiogram and clinical history. The primary endpoint was a CRT response, defined as a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume 12 months after implantation. The secondary endpoint was time-to-death. Results: The combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony and septal scarring showed AUCs ranging between 0.81 (95%CI: 0.74-0.88) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.79-0.91) for predicting a CRT response, without significant differences between the markers, but significantly higher than mechanical dyssynchrony alone. QRS morphology, QRS duration, and LV ejection fraction were not superior in their prediction. Predictive power was similar in the subgroups of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The combined assessments significantly predicted all-cause mortality at 44 ± 13 months after CRT with a hazard ratio ranging from 0.28 (95%CI: 0.12-0.67) to 0.20 (95%CI: 0.08-0.49). Conclusions: The combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony and septal scarring identified CRT responders with high predictive power. Both visual and quantitative markers were highly feasible and demonstrated similar results. This work demonstrates the value of imaging LV mechanics and scarring in CRT candidates, which can already be achieved in a clinical routine.

Phenotyping heart failure by echocardiography: imaging of ventricular function and haemodynamics at rest and exercise.

Traditionally, congestive heart failure (HF) was phenotyped by echocardiography or other imaging techniques according to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The more recent echocardiographic modality speckle tracking strain is complementary to LVEF, as it is more sensitive to diagnose mild systolic dysfunction. Furthermore, when LV systolic dysfunction is associated with a small, hypertrophic ventricle, EF is often normal or supernormal, whereas LV global longitudinal strain can reveal reduced contractility. In addition, segmental strain patterns may be used to identify specific cardiomyopathies, which in some cases can be treated with patient-specific medicine. In HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), a diagnostic hallmark is elevated LV filling pressure, which can be diagnosed with good accuracy by applying a set of echocardiographic parameters. Patients with HFpEF often have normal filling pressure at rest, and a non-invasive or invasive diastolic stress test may be used to identify abnormal elevation of filling pressure during exercise. The novel parameter LV work index, which incorporates afterload, is a promising tool for quantification of LV contractile function and efficiency. Another novel modality is shear wave imaging for diagnosing stiff ventricles, but clinical utility remains to be determined. In conclusion, echocardiographic imaging of cardiac function should include LV strain as a supplementary method to LVEF. Echocardiographic parameters can identify elevated LV filling pressure with good accuracy and may be applied in the diagnostic workup of patients suspected of HFpEF.

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Diastolic Function in Special Populations.

Left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction results from a combination of impaired relaxation, reduced restoring forces, and increased chamber stiffness. Noninvasive assessment of diastology uses a multiparametric approach involving surrogate markers of increased filling pressures, which include mitral inflow, septal and lateral annular velocities, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, and left atrial volume index. However, these parameters must be used cautiously. This is because the traditional algorithms for evaluating diastolic function and estimation of LV filling pressures (LVFPs), as recommended by the American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging 2016 guidelines, do not apply to unique patients with underlying cardiomyopathies, significant valvular disease, conduction abnormalities, arrhythmias, LV assist devices, and heart transplants, which alter the relation between the conventional indexes of diastolic function and LVFP. The purpose of this review is to provide solutions for evaluating LVFP through illustrative examples of these special populations, incorporating supplemental Doppler indexes, such as isovolumic relaxation time, mitral deceleration time, and pulmonary venous flow analysis, as needed to formulate a more comprehensive approach.