Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2019
Left ventricular mechanical dispersion predicts arrhythmic risk in mitral valve prolapse.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка 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.
Ermakov Simon, Gulhar Radhika, Lim Lisa, Bibby Dwight, Fang Qizhi, Nah Gregory, Abraham Theodore P, Schiller Nelson B, Delling Francesca N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Bileaflet mitral valve prolapse (MVP) with either focal or diffuse myocardial fibrosis has been linked to ventricular arrhythmia and/or sudden cardiac arrest. Left ventricular (LV) mechanical dispersion by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) is a measure of heterogeneity of ventricular contraction previously associated with myocardial fibrosis. The aim of this study is to determine whether mechanical dispersion can identify MVP at higher arrhythmic risk.
METHODS: We identified 32 consecutive arrhythmic MVPs (A-MVP) with a history of complex ventricular ectopy on Holter/event monitor (n=23) or defibrillator placement (n=9) along with 27 MVPs without arrhythmic complications (NA-MVP) and 39 controls. STE was performed to calculate global longitudinal strain (GLS) as the average peak longitudinal strain from an 18-segment LV model and mechanical dispersion as the SD of the time to peak strain of each segment.
RESULTS: MVPs had significantly higher mechanical dispersion compared with controls (52 vs 42 ms, p=0.005) despite similar LV ejection fraction (62% vs 63%, p=0.42) and GLS (-19.7 vs -21, p=0.045). A-MVP and NA-MVP had similar demographics, LV ejection fraction and GLS (all p>0.05). A-MVP had more bileaflet prolapse (69% vs 44%, p=0.031) with a similar degree of mitral regurgitation (mostly trace or mild in both groups) (p>0.05). A-MVP exhibited greater mechanical dispersion when compared with NA-MVP (59 vs 43 ms, p=0.0002). Mechanical dispersion was the only significant predictor of arrhythmic risk on multivariate analysis (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11, p=0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: STE-derived mechanical dispersion may help identify MVP patients at higher arrhythmic risk.
METHODS: We identified 32 consecutive arrhythmic MVPs (A-MVP) with a history of complex ventricular ectopy on Holter/event monitor (n=23) or defibrillator placement (n=9) along with 27 MVPs without arrhythmic complications (NA-MVP) and 39 controls. STE was performed to calculate global longitudinal strain (GLS) as the average peak longitudinal strain from an 18-segment LV model and mechanical dispersion as the SD of the time to peak strain of each segment.
RESULTS: MVPs had significantly higher mechanical dispersion compared with controls (52 vs 42 ms, p=0.005) despite similar LV ejection fraction (62% vs 63%, p=0.42) and GLS (-19.7 vs -21, p=0.045). A-MVP and NA-MVP had similar demographics, LV ejection fraction and GLS (all p>0.05). A-MVP had more bileaflet prolapse (69% vs 44%, p=0.031) with a similar degree of mitral regurgitation (mostly trace or mild in both groups) (p>0.05). A-MVP exhibited greater mechanical dispersion when compared with NA-MVP (59 vs 43 ms, p=0.0002). Mechanical dispersion was the only significant predictor of arrhythmic risk on multivariate analysis (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11, p=0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: STE-derived mechanical dispersion may help identify MVP patients at higher arrhythmic risk.