Potential role of conventional and speckle-tracking echocardiography in the screening of structural and functional cardiac abnormalities in elderly individuals: Baseline echocardiographic findings from the LOOP study.

BACKGROUND: Elderly individuals occupy an increasing part of the general population. Conventional and speckle-tracking transthoracic echocardiography may help guide risk stratification in these individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential utility of conventional and speckle-tracking echocardiography in the screening of cardiac abnormalities in the elderly population. METHODS: Two cohorts of elderly individuals (sample size: 1441 and 944) were analyzed, who were part of a randomized controlled clinical trial (LOOP study) and of an observational study (Copenhagen City Heart Study), recruiting participants from the general population >70 years of age with cardiovascular risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or prior stroke) and sinus rhythm. Participants underwent a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiographic examination, including myocardial speckle tracking. Cardiac abnormalities were defined according to the ASE/EACVI guidelines. RESULTS: Structural cardiac abnormalities such as left ventricular (LV) remodeling, mitral annular calcification (MAC), and aortic valve sclerosis (with or without stenosis) were highly prevalent in the LOOP study (40%, 39%, and 27%, respectively). Moreover, a high prevalence of functional cardiac alterations such as LV diastolic dysfunction (LVDD), abnormal LV longitudinal systolic strain (GLS), and abnormal left atrial (LA) reservoir strain was present in the LOOP study (27%, 18%, and 9%, respectively). Likewise, the rate of LVDD, abnormal GLS, and abnormal LA reservoir strain was comparable in the validation sample from the Copenhagen City Heart Study. In line with these findings, subjects with LV remodeling, MAC, and aortic valve changes had a higher prevalence of LVDD, abnormal GLS, and abnormal LA reservoir strain than those without structural cardiac alterations. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study highlight the potential clinical utility of conventional and speckle-tracking echocardiography in the screening of structural and functional cardiac abnormalities in the elderly population. Further studies are warranted to determine the prognostic relevance of these findings.

Accuracy, analysis time, and reproducibility of dedicated 4D echocardiographic left atrial volume quantification software.

Four-dimensional (4D) echocardiography may provide more accurate estimations of left atrial (LA) volumes than 2-dimensional (2D) measures. We sought to compare the concordance of a novel 4D LA quantification software versus 2D echocardiography against cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). This was a multimodality imaging substudy of a randomized clinical trial (the LOOP study). Elderly participants with stroke risk factors were included. A subgroup of this study population underwent transthoracic echocardiography (n = 1441) and a subset underwent CMR within two weeks (n = 73). The mean age of the echocardiographic study population was 74 years and 54% were men. The maximal LA volume (LAVmax) was 47 mL by 2D, 52 mL by 4D, and 104 mL by CMR. While 2D echocardiography showed a moderate correlation with 4D (R2 = 0.51) it yielded significantly lower values for LAVmax with a mean difference of 4.5 ± 11.9 mL, p < 0.001. 4D echocardiography correlated strongly with CMR measurements (R2 = 0.70), whereas 2D echocardiography showed a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.53). However, both modalities systematically underestimated LAVmax largely compared to CMR (2D vs. CMR: - 54.9 ± 21.3 mL; 4D vs. CMR: - 49.7 ± 18.6 mL). Similar observations were made for minimal LA volume and LA volume before atrial contraction. Analyses time by 4D was shorter than for 2D (90 ± 11 vs. 118 ± 16 s, p < 0.001). Intra- and interobserver variability was lower for 4D than 2D. Four-dimensional echocardiography is faster, more reproducible, and correlates more closely to CMR than 2D echocardiography. Both 4D and 2D echocardiography systematically underestimates LA volumes compared to CMR, emphasizing that values of LA volumes are not interchangeable between echocardiography and CMR.