Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2022
Normal Values for Myocardial Work Indices Derived From Pressure-Strain Loop Analyses: From the CCHS.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olsen Flemming Javier, Skaarup Kristoffer Grundtvig, Lassen Mats Christian Højbjerg, Johansen Niklas Dyrby, Sengeløv Morten, Jensen Gorm Boje, Schnohr Peter, Marott Jacob Louis, Søgaard Peter, Gislason Gunnar, Svendsen Jesper Hastrup, Møgelvang Rasmus, Aalen John Moene, Remme Espen Wattenberg, Smiseth Otto Armin, Biering-Sørensen Tor
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pressure-strain loop analyses is a noninvasive technique capable of evaluating myocardial work. Reference values are needed to benchmark these myocardial work indices for clinical practice.
METHODS: Healthy participants from a general population study were used to establish reference values for global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work (GWW), and global work efficiency (GWE) measured by pressure-strain loop analyses. The relation to age and sex was examined. We furthermore examined the proportion of abnormal work indices according to low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk by the Framingham risk score.
RESULTS: The healthy sample consisted of 1827 participants (median age, 45 years; 39% men). Lower reference values were GWI, 1576 mm Hg%; GCW, 1708 mm Hg%; and GWE, 93.0% and upper reference value for GWW was 159 mm Hg%. Women exhibited significantly higher GWI, GCW, and GWW and lower GWE. Sex significantly modified the association between all indices and age (P for interaction: 0.001 for GWI, 0.009 for GCW, 0.003 for GWW, and 0.009 for GWE). For men, only GCW increased with age, whereas the other indices did not change with age. For women, GCW increased linearly with increasing age, whereas GWI, GWW, and GWE changed in a curvilinear fashion with age such that GWI increased in younger participants, GWW increased in elderly, and GWE declined concordantly. Abnormalities in myocardial work indices became more frequent with increasing Framingham risk score category (abnormal GWI: 2% versus 4% versus 5%, P=0.001; abnormal GCW: 2% versus 3% versus 4%, P=0.006; abnormal GWW: 3% versus 6% versus 11%, P<0.001; abnormal GWE: 3% versus 4% versus 11%, P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial work indices differ between sexes and change with age in a sex-dependent manner. Accordingly, we established age- and sex-specific reference values from a general population sample. Abnormal work indices become more frequent with higher clinical risk.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02993172.
METHODS: Healthy participants from a general population study were used to establish reference values for global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work (GWW), and global work efficiency (GWE) measured by pressure-strain loop analyses. The relation to age and sex was examined. We furthermore examined the proportion of abnormal work indices according to low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk by the Framingham risk score.
RESULTS: The healthy sample consisted of 1827 participants (median age, 45 years; 39% men). Lower reference values were GWI, 1576 mm Hg%; GCW, 1708 mm Hg%; and GWE, 93.0% and upper reference value for GWW was 159 mm Hg%. Women exhibited significantly higher GWI, GCW, and GWW and lower GWE. Sex significantly modified the association between all indices and age (P for interaction: 0.001 for GWI, 0.009 for GCW, 0.003 for GWW, and 0.009 for GWE). For men, only GCW increased with age, whereas the other indices did not change with age. For women, GCW increased linearly with increasing age, whereas GWI, GWW, and GWE changed in a curvilinear fashion with age such that GWI increased in younger participants, GWW increased in elderly, and GWE declined concordantly. Abnormalities in myocardial work indices became more frequent with increasing Framingham risk score category (abnormal GWI: 2% versus 4% versus 5%, P=0.001; abnormal GCW: 2% versus 3% versus 4%, P=0.006; abnormal GWW: 3% versus 6% versus 11%, P<0.001; abnormal GWE: 3% versus 4% versus 11%, P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial work indices differ between sexes and change with age in a sex-dependent manner. Accordingly, we established age- and sex-specific reference values from a general population sample. Abnormal work indices become more frequent with higher clinical risk.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02993172.