Atrial secondary mitral regurgitation: prevalence, characteristics, management, and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence, clinical characteristics, management and long-term outcomes of patients with atrial secondary mitral regurgitation (ASMR) are not well described. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study of consecutive patients with grade III/IV MR determined by transthoracic echocardiography. The aetiology of MR was grouped as being either primary (due to degenerative mitral valve disease), ventricular SMR (VSMR: due to left ventricular dilatation/dysfunction), ASMR (due to LA dilatation), or other. RESULTS: A total of 388 individuals were identified who had grade III/IV MR; of whom 37 (9.5%) had ASMR, 113 (29.1%) had VSMR, 193 had primary MR (49.7%), and 45 (11.6%) were classified as having other causes. Compared to MR of other subtypes, patients with ASMR were on average older (median age 82 [74-87] years, p < 0.001), were more likely to be female (67.6%, p = 0.004) and usually had atrial fibrillation (83.8%, p = 0.001). All-cause mortality was highest in patients with ASMR (p < 0.001), but similar to that in patients with VSMR once adjusted for age and sex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.25). Hospitalisation for worsening heart failure was more commonly observed in those with ASMR or VSMR (p < 0.001) although was similar between these groups when age and sex were accounted for (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.34-1.58). For patients with ASMR, the only variables associated with outcomes were age and co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: ASMR is a prevalent and distinct disease process associated with a poor prognosis, with much of this related to older age and co-morbidities.

Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia is a cornerstone of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using positron emission tomography (PET) is the current reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial ischaemia. Dynamic myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers an alternative to PET and a recently developed method with automated inline perfusion mapping has shown good correlation of MBF values between CMR and PET. This study assessed the repeatability of myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR in healthy subjects. METHODS: Forty-two healthy subjects were recruited and underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion CMR on two visits. Scans were repeated with a minimum interval of 7 days. Intrastudy rest and stress MBF repeatability were assessed with a 15-min interval between acquisitions. Interstudy rest and stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured for global myocardium and regionally for coronary territories and slices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in intrastudy repeated global rest MBF (0.65 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 ± 0.12 ml/g/min, p = 0.24, repeatability coefficient (RC) =24%) or stress (2.89 ± 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 ± 0.64 ml/g/min, p = 0.41, RC = 29%) MBF. No significant difference was seen in interstudy repeatability for global rest MBF (0.64 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 ± 0.15 ml/g/min, p = 0.80, RC = 32%), stress MBF (2.71 ± 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 ± 0.57 ml/g/min, p = 0.12, RC = 33%) or MPR (4.24 ± 0.69 vs 3.73 ± 0.76, p = 0.25, RC = 36%). Regional repeatability was good for stress (RC = 30-37%) and rest MBF (RC = 32-36%) but poorer for MPR (RC = 35-43%). Within subject coefficient of variation was 8% for rest and 11% for stress within the same study, and 11% for rest and 12% for stress between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Fully automated, inline, myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR shows good repeatability that is similar to the published PET literature. Both rest and stress MBF show better repeatability than MPR, particularly in regional analysis.

Advanced Electrocardiography Identifies Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and Tracks Serial Change over Time.

Electrocardiogram (ECG)-based detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) has poor specificity and positive predictive value, even when including major ECG abnormalities, such as left bundle branch block (LBBB) within the criteria for diagnosis. Although machine-read ECG algorithms do not provide information on LVSD, advanced ECG (A-ECG), using multiparameter scores, has superior diagnostic utility to strictly conventional ECG for identifying various cardiac pathologies, including LVSD. METHODS: We evaluated the diagnostic utility of A-ECG in a case-control study of 40 patients with LVSD (LV ejection fraction < 50% by echocardiography), due to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), and 39 other patients without LVSD. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for LVSD were determined after applying a previously validated probabilistic A-ECG score for LVSD to stored standard (10 s) clinical 12L ECGs. In 25 of the NICM patients who had serial ECGs and echocardiograms, changes in the A-ECG score versus in echocardiographic LV ejection fraction were also studied to determine the level of agreement between the two tests. RESULTS: Analyses by A-ECG had a sensitivity of 95% for LVSD (93% if excluding N = 11 patients with LBBB) and specificity of 95%. In the 29 NICM patients without LBBB who had serial ECGs, sensitivity improved to 97% when all ECGs were considered. By comparison, human readers in a busy clinical environment had a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 63%. A-ECG score trajectories demonstrated improvement, deterioration or no change in LVSD, which agreed with echocardiography, in 76% of cases (n = 25). CONCLUSION: A-ECG scoring detects LVSD due to NICM with high sensitivity and specificity. Serial A-ECG score trajectories also represent a method for inexpensively demonstrating changes in LVSD. A-ECG scoring may be of particular value in areas where echocardiography is unavailable, or as a gatekeeper for echocardiography.