RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional volumetric exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) provides an integrated view of left ventricular (LV) preload reserve through end-diastolic volume (EDV) and LV contractile reserve (LVCR) through end-systolic volume (ESV) changes. PURPOSE: To assess the dependence of cardiac reserve upon LVCR, EDV, and heart rate (HR) during ESE. METHODS: We prospectively performed semi-supine bicycle or treadmill ESE in 1344 patients (age 59.8 ± 11.4 years; ejection fraction = 63 ± 8%) referred for known or suspected coronary artery disease. All patients had negative ESE by wall motion criteria. EDV and ESV were measured by biplane Simpson rule with 2-dimensional echocardiography. Cardiac index reserve was identified by peak-rest value. LVCR was the stress-rest ratio of force (systolic blood pressure by cuff sphygmomanometer/ESV, abnormal values ≤2.0). Preload reserve was defined by an increase in EDV. Cardiac index was calculated as stroke volume index * HR (by EKG). HR reserve (stress/rest ratio) <1.85 identified chronotropic incompetence. RESULTS: Of the 1344 patients, 448 were in the lowest tertile of cardiac index reserve with stress. Of them, 303 (67.6%) achieved HR reserve <1.85; 252 (56.3%) had an abnormal LVCR and 341 (76.1%) a reduction of preload reserve, with 446 patients (99.6%) showing ≥1 abnormality. At binary logistic regression analysis, reduced preload reserve (odds ratio [OR]: 5.610; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.025 to 7.821), chronotropic incompetence (OR: 3.923, 95% CI: 2.915 to 5.279), and abnormal LVCR (OR: 1.579; 95% CI: 1.105 to 2.259) were independently associated with lowest tertile of cardiac index reserve at peak stress. CONCLUSIONS: Heart rate assessment and volumetric echocardiography during ESE identify the heterogeneity of hemodynamic phenotypes of impaired chronotropic, preload or LVCR underlying a reduced cardiac reserve.
RESUMO
With stress echo (SE) 2020 study, a new standard of practice in stress imaging was developed and disseminated: the ABCDE protocol for functional testing within and beyond CAD. ABCDE protocol was the fruit of SE 2020, and is the seed of SE 2030, which is articulated in 12 projects: 1-SE in coronary artery disease (SECAD); 2-SE in diastolic heart failure (SEDIA); 3-SE in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SEHCA); 4-SE post-chest radiotherapy and chemotherapy (SERA); 5-Artificial intelligence SE evaluation (AI-SEE); 6-Environmental stress echocardiography and air pollution (ESTER); 7-SE in repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (SETOF); 8-SE in post-COVID-19 (SECOV); 9: Recovery by stress echo of conventionally unfit donor good hearts (RESURGE); 10-SE for mitral ischemic regurgitation (SEMIR); 11-SE in valvular heart disease (SEVA); 12-SE for coronary vasospasm (SESPASM). The study aims to recruit in the next 5 years (2021-2025) ≥10,000 patients followed for ≥5 years (up to 2030) from ≥20 quality-controlled laboratories from ≥10 countries. In this COVID-19 era of sustainable health care delivery, SE2030 will provide the evidence to finally recommend SE as the optimal and versatile imaging modality for functional testing anywhere, any time, and in any patient.
RESUMO
RESUMEN Introducción: El comportamiento de la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI) durante el ejercicio se utiliza para medir la reserva contráctil (RC). La RC medida por elastancia podría tener mayor valor pronóstico. Objetivo: Establecer si la medición de la RC por elastancia añade valor pronóstico a largo plazo en relación al comportamiento aislado de la FEVI en pacientes con un Eco Estrés sin isquemia miocárdica. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo, realizado en 904 pacientes con Eco Estrés con ejercicio sin isquemia. Se valoró la RC por FEVI y por elastancia. Se dividieron en 2 grupos: Grupo 1: RC por FEVI presente (a su vez este grupo se dividió en 2 subgrupos: Grupo 1 A, RC con elastancia presente y Grupo 1B: ausencia de RC por elastancia), y Grupo 2: pacientes con ausencia de RC por FEVI. El seguimiento fue de 17,7 ± 5,4 meses. Se consideraron como eventos: muerte, infarto agudo de miocardio (IAM), accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) y/o internación de causa cardiovascular. Resultados: Del total del Grupo 1 (536 pacientes), 200 (37,3%) se incluyeron en el Grupo 1A y 336 (62,7%) en el Grupo 1B. En el Grupo 2, se incluyeron 368 pacientes. En el seguimiento, los pacientes del Grupo 2 tuvieron más eventos, 30 (8,1%) vs. 22 (2,6%) (HR 3,14, IC95% 1,95-5,9, log rank test p<0,001). Dentro del G1, los pacientes del Grupo 1B presentaron más eventos: 18 (5,3%) vs 4 eventos (2%) (HR 2,46 IC95% 1,06-7,3, log rank test p<0,05). En el modelo de regresión, la elastancia fue la única variable predictora de eventos (HR 3,2, IC95% 1,83-5,6, p<0,001). Conclusiones: En el Eco Estrés ejercicio negativo para isquemia, el comportamiento de la RC evaluada por elastancia permitió identificar un subgrupo de peor pronóstico a largo plazo en pacientes con comportamiento normal de la FEVI.
ABSTRACT Background: The behavior of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during exercise is used to measure contractile reserve (CR). CR measured by elastance could have greater prognostic value. Objective: To establish whether the measurement of CR by elastance adds long-term prognostic value to CR measured by LVEF in patients with a Stress Echo without myocardial ischemia. Material and methods: Retrospective study, carried out in 904 patients with an exercise Stress Echo without ischemia. CR was assessed by LVEF and by elastance. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1: presence of CR by LVEF (in turn this group was divided into 2 subgroups: Group 1A, CR with elastance present, and Group 1B: absence of CR by elastance), and Group 2: patients with absence of CR by LVEF. The follow-up was 17,7 ± 5,4 months. Outcomes considered were death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and cardiovascular hospitalization. Results: 536 patients were included in Group 1, 200 (37,3 %) in Group 1A and 336 (62,7%) in Group 1B. In Group 2, 368 patients were included. At follow-up, patients in Group 2 had more events, 30 (8.1%) vs. 22 (2.6%) (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.95-5.9, log rank test p <0.001). Within G1, patients in Group 1B presented more events: 18(5.3%) vs 4 (2%) (HR 2.46 CI 95% 1.06-7.3, log rank test p <0.05). In the regression model, CR assessed by LVEF and additionally by elastance was the only significant outcome predictor (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.83-5.6, p <0.001). Conclusions: In an exercise Stress Echo negative for ischemia, CR behavior evaluated by elastance allowed us to identify a subgroup with a worse long-term prognosis in patients with normal LVEF response.