Unravelling the grey zone: cardiac MRI volume to wall mass ratio to differentiate hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and the athlete's heart.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating physiological left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in athletes from pathological hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) can be challenging. This study assesses the ability of cardiac MRI (CMR) to distinguish between physiological LVH (so-called athlete's heart) and HCM. METHODS: 45 patients with HCM (71% men and 20% athletic) and 734 healthy control participants (60% men and 75% athletic) underwent CMR. Quantitative ventricular parameters were used for multivariate logistic regression with age, gender, sport status and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV) to ED ventricular wall mass (EDM) ratio as covariates. A second model added the LV EDV : right ventricular (RV) EDV ratio. The performance of the model was subsequently tested. RESULTS: LV EDM was greater in patients with HCM (74 g/m2) compared with healthy athletes/non-athletes (53/41 g/m2), while LV EDV was largest in athletes (114 ml/m2) as compared with non-athletes (94 ml/m2) and patients with HCM (88 ml/m2). The LV EDV : EDM ratio was significantly lower in patients with HCM compared with healthy controls and athletes (1.30/2.39/2.25, p<0.05). The LV EDV : RV EDV ratio was significantly greater in patients with HCM (1.10) than in healthy participants (non-athletes/athletes 0.94/0.93). The regression model resulted in high sensitivity and specificity levels in all and borderline-LVH participants (as defined by septal wall thickness). Corresponding areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.995 (all participants) and 0.992 (borderline-LVH participants only). Adding the LV EDV : RV EDV ratio yielded no additional improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A model incorporating the LV EDV : EDM ratio can help distinguish HCM from physiological hypertrophy in athletes. This also applies to cases with borderline LVH, which present the greatest diagnostic challenge in clinical practice.

Beneficial effects of biventricular pacing in chronically right ventricular paced patients with mild cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: To investigate whether cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by means of biventricular (BiV) pacing can improve left ventricular (LV) function, remodelling and clinical status in chronically right ventricular (RV) paced patients with mild cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-six chronically (10 +/- 7 years) RV paced patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% or LVEDD > 55 mm, without an established indication for CRT, were subjected to 6 months RV and BiV pacing in a patient-blinded, randomized crossover design. Treatment-effects of BiV pacing were evaluated for LV function, LV remodelling and clinical status. As compared with RV pacing, BiV pacing significantly improved LV function (LVEF 46 +/- 12 vs. 39 +/- 12% and LVFS 24 +/- 7 vs. 21 +/- 7%) and reduced LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters and volumes (LVEDD 56 +/- 8 vs. 59 +/- 8 mm, LVESD 43 +/- 8 vs. 47 +/- 9 mm, LVEDV 132 +/- 65 vs.144 +/- 62 mL and LVESV 77 +/- 56 vs. 92 +/- 55 mL, respectively). In 19 patients (53%) response to BiV pacing was clinically relevant, defined as LVESV reduction >15%. BiV pacing also significantly improved NYHA classification. CONCLUSION: BiV pacing following chronic RV pacing may improve LV function and reverse LV remodelling in patients with relatively mild LV dysfunction or remodelling. Hence, upgrade to BiV pacing might be considered in chronically RV paced patients with mild cardiomyopathy.

Calculation of effective VV interval facilitates optimization of AV delay and VV interval in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: In hearts with left bundle branch block (LBBB), both atrioventricular (AV) delay and interventricular (VV) interval determine left ventricular (LV) pump function in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The optimal combination of AV delay and VV interval currently is determined by extensive hemodynamic testing. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effective VV interval (VV(eff)) can be used to optimize AV delay and VV interval. METHODS: In eight canine hearts with chronic LBBB, LV pacing was performed at various AV delays as well as biventricular pacing at multiple AV delays and VV intervals. LV pump function was assessed from LVdP/dt(max) and stroke volume (conductance catheter). Interventricular asynchrony was calculated from the timing difference between upslope of LV and RV pressure curves. VV(eff) was defined as the time delay between activation of the RV apex and LV lateral wall, irrespective of the source of RV activation (RV pacing or intrinsic conduction). VV(eff) was determined from pacemaker settings and surface ECGs recorded during biventricular pacing at various AV delays (positive values denote LV preexcitation). RESULTS: For all animals, the relationship between VV(eff) and LVdP/dt(max) as well as LV stroke work was parabolic. Maximal improvement in LVdP/dt(max) was similar during LV pacing, simultaneous biventricular pacing, and sequential biventricular pacing and was obtained at similar values of VV(eff). VV(eff) was strongly correlated with interventricular asynchrony (R = 0.97 +/- 0.03). Optimum LVdP/dt(max) occurred at VV(eff) ranging from -24 to 12 ms (mean -6 +/- 13 ms). For each experiment, the optimal VV(eff) was virtually equal to the value halfway between its minimum (during LV pacing at short AV delay) and maximum (during LBBB) value (R = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Use of VV(eff) facilitates determination of the best combination of AV delay and VV interval during biventricular pacing. For each individual heart, VV(eff), resulting in optimum LV pump function, can be estimated using surface ECGs recorded during biventricular pacing.

Ventricular remodeling during long-term right ventricular pacing following His bundle ablation.

To investigate ventricular remodeling during long-term right ventricular (RV) pacing after His bundle ablation (HBA) in patients with atrial arrhythmias, a retrospective analysis was performed on echocardiographic data from 45 patients (mean age 57 +/- 11 years) with atrial arrhythmias who underwent HBA and pacemaker implantation (HBA-PI) to control ventricular rate. Echocardiography was performed 1 year before HBA-PI, and up to 7 +/- 2 years of follow-up was conducted. An inverse linear relation was found between the relative increase of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter (EDD) during long-term RV pacing and LVEDD before HBA-PI (r = -0.61, p<0.001). Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with LVEDDs smaller than the mean LVEDD of 50 mm (group I, 46 +/- 2 mm, n = 28) and those with LVEDDs >50 mm (group II, 56 +/- 4 mm, n = 17). Before HBA-PI, patients in group I had significantly smaller LV weights (167 +/- 44 vs 238 +/- 56 g) and LV end-systolic diameters (30 +/- 2 vs 42 +/- 7 mm) and higher LV ejection fractions (64 +/- 5% vs 49+/- 12%) than those in group II. In group I, long-term RV pacing increased LVEDD, LV end-systolic diameter, LV weight, and left atrial diameter; increased mitral regurgitation; and decreased the LV ejection fraction and LV fractional shortening. No significant changes were observed during long-term RV pacing in group II. In conclusion, long-term RV pacing after HBA adversely affects LV structure and function in patients with initially normal LV dimensions and function.