Evaluating left atrial strain and left ventricular diastolic strain rate as markers for diastolic dysfunction in patients with mitral annular calcification.

BACKGROUND: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) poses many challenges to the evaluation of diastolic function using standard echocardiography. Left atrial (LA) strain and left ventricular early diastolic strain rate (DSr) measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) are emerging techniques in the noninvasive evaluation of diastolic function. We aim to evaluate the utility of LA strain and early DSr in predicting elevated left ventricular filling pressures (LVFP) in patients with MAC and compare their effectiveness to ratio of mitral inflow velocity in early and late diastole (E/A). METHODS: We included adult patients with MAC who presented between January 1 and December 31, 2014 and received a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) and cardiac catheterization with measurement of LVFP within a 24-h period. We used Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to assess associations of LA reservoir strain and average early DSr with LVFP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to assess the effectiveness of LA strain and DSr in discriminating elevated LVFP as a dichotomized variable and to compare their effectiveness with E/A ratio categorized according to grade of diastolic dysfunction. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included. LA reservoir strain demonstrated poor correlation with LVFP (Spearman's rho = 0.03, p = 0.81) and poor discriminatory ability for detecting elevated LVFP (AUC = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.69). Categorical E/A ratio alone also demonstrated poor discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.67), and addition of LA reservoir strain did not significantly improve effectiveness (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.74, p = 0.56). Average early DSr also demonstrated poor correlation with LVFP (Spearman's rho = -0.19, p = 0.16) and poor discriminatory ability for detecting elevated LVFP (AUC = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.75). Addition of average early DSr to categorical E/A ratio failed to improve effectiveness (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.77 vs. AUC = 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.69, p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, LA reservoir strain and DSr do not accurately predict diastolic filling pressure. Further research is required before LA strain and early DSr can be routinely used in clinical practice to assess filling pressure in patients with MAC.

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.

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.

Insights Into the Standard Echocardiographic Views From Multimodality Imaging: Ventricles, Pericardium, Valves, and Atria.

The widespread use of cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients undergoing echocardiography presents an opportunity to correlate the images side by side. Accordingly, the aim of this report is to review aspects of the standard echocardiographic examination alongside similarly oriented images from the two tomographic imaging modalities. It is hoped that this exercise will enhance understanding of the structures depicted by echocardiography as they relate to other structures in the thorax. In addition to reviewing basic cardiac anatomy, the authors take advantage of these correlations with computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to better understand the issue of foreshortening, a common pitfall in transthoracic echocardiography. The authors also highlight an important role that three-dimensional echocardiography can potentially play in the future, especially as advances in image processing permit higher fidelity multiplanar reconstruction images.

Insight into different phenotypic presentations of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for half of all HF diagnoses, and its prevalence is increasing at an alarming rate. Lately, it has been recognized as a clinical syndrome due to diverse underlying etiology and pathophysiological mechanisms. The classic echocardiographic features of HFpEF have been well described as preserved ejection fraction (≥50%), left ventricular hypertrophy, and left atrial enlargement. However, echocardiography can play a key role in identifying the principal underlying mechanism responsible for HFpEF in the individual patient. The recognition of different phenotypic presentations of HFpEF (infiltrative, metabolic, genetic, and inflammatory) can assist the clinician in tailoring the appropriate management, and offer prognostic information. The goal of this review is to highlight several key phenotypes of HFpEF and illustrate the classic clinical scenario and echocardiographic features of each phenotype with real patient cases.

Prognostic Stratification of Clinically Stable Patients with Heart Failure by Echocardiographic Pressure/Volume Loop Model.

BACKGROUND: Pressure/volume (P/V) loops provide useful information on left ventricular performance and prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) but do not lend themselves to routine clinical practice. The authors developed a noninvasive method to compute individualized P/V loops to predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients with stable HF, which the authors believe can be used clinically. METHODS: A derivation cohort (n = 443 patients) was used to develop an echocardiography P/V loop model, using brachial arterial pressure and trans-thoracic two-dimensional Doppler echocardiographic data. Each patient's P/V loop was depicted as an irregular pentagon, and a centroid was derived for each loop. The centroid distance (CD) from a reference centroid (derived from 101 healthy control subjects) was computed. This model was prospectively applied to 435 patients who constituted the validation cohort. The study end point was a composite of cardiac death or hospitalization for HF among study patients. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, CD was threefold greater among patients who experienced adverse events than those who did not. During a follow-up period of 30 months (15-45 months), event rates were 35% (72 of 206 patients) and 12% (29 of 237 patients P < .001), respectively, among patients with CD > 33 mL/mm Hg and those with CD ≤33 mL/mm Hg (prognostic cutoff derived by receiver operating characteristic analysis). Multivariate Cox analysis identified CD as an independent predictor of adverse outcome (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.03-2.50) independently of left ventricular end-diastolic volume, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and left ventricular ejection fraction. These conclusions were confirmed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose a method to create a noninvasive P/V loop and its centroid. These data provide useful pathophysiologic and prognostic information in patients with HF.

Developing a curriculum to improve cardiology fellows' training in pregnancy and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to pregnant women with cardiovascular disease (CVD) during cardiology fellowship training is limited and without a standard curriculum in the United States. The authors sought to evaluate a dedicated curriculum to teach management of CVD in pregnancy to improve general cardiology fellowship training. METHODS: The authors developed a dedicated CVD in pregnancy curriculum for the general cardiology fellows at a large academic medical center in the fall of 2019. Fellows' knowledge was assessed via a board-style examination and exposure and attitudes related to the care of pregnant women with CVD were evaluated with a needs assessment questionnaire before and after the curriculum. RESULTS: Of the 17 fellows who participated in the curriculum, 12 completed the needs assessment pre-curriculum and 9 post-curriculum. The mean (SD) number of pregnant women with CVD cared for by each fellow in the inpatient and outpatient settings were 0.75 (1.29) and 0.56 (0.73), respectively. After the curriculum, all fellows reported awareness of available resources to treat pregnant women with CVD, while a majority disagreed that they receive regular exposure to pregnant patients with CVD in their training. The authors observed significant increases in fellows' confidence in their knowledge of normal cardiovascular physiology of pregnancy, physical exam skills, and ability to care for pregnant women with valvular disease and arrhythmias from pre to post-curriculum. A total of 15 fellows completed the board-style exam pre-curriculum and 15 post-curriculum. Fellows' performance on the board-style examination improved slightly from before to after the curriculum (64.0 to 75.3% correct, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated curriculum improved cardiology fellows' knowledge to recognize and treat CVD in pregnancy and improved confidence in caring for this unique patient population.

Cardiac and Obstetric Outcomes Associated With Mitral Valve Prolapse.

Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is the most common valvular heart disease in women of reproductive age. Whether MVP increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes in pregnancy is unknown. The study objective was to examine the cardiac and obstetric outcomes associated with MVP in pregnant women. This retrospective cohort study, using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Readmission Sample database between 2010 and 2017, identified all pregnant women with MVP using the International Classification of Disease, Ninth and Tenth Revisions codes. The maternal cardiac and obstetric outcomes in pregnant women diagnosed with MVP were compared with women without MVP using multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for baseline demographic characteristics. There were 23,000 pregnancy admissions with MVP with an overall incidence of 16.9 cases per 10,000 pregnancy admissions. Pregnant women with MVP were more likely to die during pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio 5.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 24.16), develop cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.89), arrhythmia (aOR 10.96, 95% CI 9.17 to 13.12), stroke (aOR 6.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 37.58), heart failure (aOR 5.81, 95% CI 3.84 to 8.79), or suffer a coronary artery dissection (aOR 25.22, 95% CI 3.42 to 186.07) compared with women without MVP. Pregnancies with MVP were also associated with increased risks of preterm delivery (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.44) and preeclampsia/hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.41). In conclusion, MVP in pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal cardiac outcomes and higher obstetric risks.

Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction in SPRINT.

BACKGROUND: In the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive BP treatment reduced acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) events. Here, we report the effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and their subsequent outcomes. METHODS: Incident ADHF was defined as hospitalization or emergency department visit, confirmed, and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols. HFpEF was defined as EF ≥45%, and HFrEF was EF <45%. RESULTS: Among the 133 participants with incident ADHF who had EF assessment, 69 (52%) had HFpEF and 64 (48%) had HFrEF (P value: 0.73). During average 3.3 years follow-up in those who developed incident ADHF, rates of subsequent all-cause and HF hospital readmission and mortality were high, but there were no significant differences between those who developed HFpEF versus HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm had no effect on subsequent mortality or readmissions after the initial ADHF event, irrespective of EF subtype. During follow-up among participants who developed HFpEF, although relatively modest number of events limited statistical power, age was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, and Black race independently predicted all-cause and HF hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: In SPRINT, intensive BP reduction decreased both acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF events. After initial incident ADHF, rates of subsequent hospital admission and mortality were high and were similar for those who developed HFpEF or HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm did not alter the risks for subsequent all-cause, or HF events in either HFpEF or HFrEF. Among those who developed HFpEF, age and Black race were independent predictors of clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Incidence, Determinants and Mortality of Heart Failure Associated With Medical-Surgical Procedures in Patients ≥ 65 Years of Age (from the Cardiovascular Health Study).

Heart failure (HF) and myocardial infarction are serious complications of major noncardiac surgery in older adults. Many factors can contribute to the development of HF during the postoperative period. The incidence of, and risk factors for, procedure-associated heart failure (PHF) occurring at the time of, or shortly after, medical procedures in a population-based sample ≥ 65 years of age have not been fully characterized, particularly in comparison with HF not proximate to medical procedures. This analysis comprises 5,121 men and women free of HF at baseline from the Cardiovascular Health Study who were followed up for 12.0 years (median). HF events were documented by self-report at semi-annual contacts and confirmed by a formal adjudication committee using a review of the participants' medical records and standardized criteria for HF. Incident HF events were additionally adjudicated as either being related or unrelated to a medical procedure (PHF and non-PHF, respectively). We estimated cause-specific hazards ratios for the association of covariates with PHF and non-PHF. There were 1,728 incident HF events in the primary analysis: 168 (10%) classified as PHF, 1,526 (88%) as non-PHF, and 34 unclassified (2%). For those 1,045 participants in whom LV ejection fraction was known at the time of the HF event, it was ≥45% in 89 of 118 participants (75%) with PHF, compared to 517 of 927 participants (55%) with non-PHF (p < 0.001). Increased age, male gender, diabetes, and angina at baseline were associated with both PHF and non-PHF (range of hazard ratios (HR): 1.04-2.05]. Being Black was inversely associated with PHF [HR: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.86]. Participants with increased age, without baseline angina, and with baseline LVEF<55% were at a significantly lower risk for PHF compared to non-PHF. Among those with PHF, surgical procedures-including cardiac, orthopedic, gastrointestinal, vascular, and urologic-comprised 83.3%, while percutaneous procedures comprised 8.9% (including 6.5% represented by cardiac catheterizations and pacemaker placements). Another group composed of a variety of procedures commonly requiring large fluid volume administration comprised 7.7%. There was a lower all-cause 30-day mortality in the PHF versus the non-PHF group (2.2% vs 5.7%), with a nonsignificant odds ratio of 0.39 in a minimally adjusted model. When individuals with prior myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded in a sensitivity analysis, the proportion of incident HF with concurrent MI was greater for PHF (32.9%) than for non-PHF (19.8%). In conclusion, PHF in older adults is a common entity with relatively low 30-day mortality. Baseline angina, lower age, and LVEF ≥ 55% were associated with a higher risk of PHF compared to non-PHF. Being Black was associated with a lower risk of PHF and PHF as a proportion of HF was lower in Black than in non-Black participants. Compared to non-PHF, PHF more frequently presented with concurrent MI and with preserved LV ejection fraction.

Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination frequently leads to minor side-effects, that may be more intense after the second dose, but more serious side effects have been reported. We report a case of a 24-year-old man who presented to the hospital with acute substernal chest pain, 4 days after his second COVID-19 Moderna vaccination. Laboratory studies revealed elevated troponins and negative viral serologies. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) demonstrated edema and delayed gadolinium enhancement of the left ventricle in a midmyocardial and epicardial distribution. The patient was diagnosed with myocarditis following Moderna vaccination. Our case report raises concern that myocarditis is a rare side effect of COVID-19 vaccine. Despite our report, it appears that there is a significantly higher risk of cardiac involvement from COVID-19 infection compared to COVID-19 vaccination.