The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022
Prognostic value of left ventricular global constructive work in patients with cardiac amyloidosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Geers Jolien, Luchian Maria-Luiza, Motoc Andreea, De Winter Jari, Roosens Bram, Bjerke Maria, Van Eeckhaut Ann, Wittens Mandy M J, Demeester Simke, Forsyth Ramses, de Ravel Thomy, Bissay Véronique, Schots Rik, Verbrugge Frederik H, Weytjens Caroline, Weets Ilse, Cosyns Bernard, Droogmans Steven
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and global constructive work (GCW) as prognostic variables in patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA).
METHODS: CA patients were retrospectively identified between 2015 and 2021 at a tertiary care hospital. Comprehensive clinical, biochemical, and imaging evaluation including two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography with myocardial work (MW) analysis was performed. A clinical combined endpoint was defined as all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission.
RESULTS: 70 patients were followed for 16 (7-37) months and 37 (52.9%) reached the combined endpoint. Patient with versus without clinical events had a significantly lower LVEF (40.71% vs. 48.01%, p = 0.039), LVGLS (-9.26 vs. -11.32, p = 0.034) and GCW (1034.47mmHg% vs. 1424.86mmHg%, p = 0.011). Multivariable analysis showed that LVEF ( odds ratio (OR): 0.904; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.839-0.973, p = 0.007), LVGLS ( OR: 0.620; 95% CI: 0.415-0.926, p = 0.020) and GCW ( OR: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.990-0.999, p = 0.016) were significant predictors of outcome, but the model including GCW had the best discriminative ability to predict the combined endpoint (C-index = 0.888). A GCW less than 1443mmHg% was able to predict the clinical endpoint with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 64% (Area under the curve (AUC): 0.771 (95% CI: 0.581-0.961; p = 0.005)).
CONCLUSION: In CA patients, GCW may be of additional prognostic value to LVEF and GLS in predicting heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
METHODS: CA patients were retrospectively identified between 2015 and 2021 at a tertiary care hospital. Comprehensive clinical, biochemical, and imaging evaluation including two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography with myocardial work (MW) analysis was performed. A clinical combined endpoint was defined as all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission.
RESULTS: 70 patients were followed for 16 (7-37) months and 37 (52.9%) reached the combined endpoint. Patient with versus without clinical events had a significantly lower LVEF (40.71% vs. 48.01%, p = 0.039), LVGLS (-9.26 vs. -11.32, p = 0.034) and GCW (1034.47mmHg% vs. 1424.86mmHg%, p = 0.011). Multivariable analysis showed that LVEF ( odds ratio (OR): 0.904; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.839-0.973, p = 0.007), LVGLS ( OR: 0.620; 95% CI: 0.415-0.926, p = 0.020) and GCW ( OR: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.990-0.999, p = 0.016) were significant predictors of outcome, but the model including GCW had the best discriminative ability to predict the combined endpoint (C-index = 0.888). A GCW less than 1443mmHg% was able to predict the clinical endpoint with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 64% (Area under the curve (AUC): 0.771 (95% CI: 0.581-0.961; p = 0.005)).
CONCLUSION: In CA patients, GCW may be of additional prognostic value to LVEF and GLS in predicting heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality.