Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2020
Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Secondary Mitral Regurgitation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Namazi Farnaz, van der Bijl Pieter, Hirasawa Kensuke, Kamperidis Vasileios, van Wijngaarden Suzanne E, Mertens Bart, Leon Martin B, Hahn Rebecca T, Stone Gregg W, Narula Jagat, Ajmone Marsan Nina, Delgado Victoria, Bax Jeroen J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) systolic function may be overestimated in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) when using LV ejection fraction (EF). LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a less load-dependent measure of LV function. However, the prognostic value of LV GLS in secondary MR has not been evaluated.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to demonstrate the prognostic value of LV GLS over LVEF in patients with secondary MR.
METHODS: A total of 650 patients (mean 66 ± 11 years of age, 68% men) with significant secondary MR were included. The study population was subdivided based on the LV GLS value at which the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was >1 using a spline curve analysis (LV GLS <7.0%, impaired LV systolic function vs. LV GLS ≥7.0%, preserved LV systolic function). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 56 (interquartile range: 28 to 106 months) months, 334 (51%) patients died. Patients with a more impaired LV GLS showed significantly higher mortality rates at 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up (13%, 23%, and 44%, respectively) when compared with patients with more preserved LV systolic function (5%, 14%, and 31%, respectively). On multivariable analysis, LV GLS <7.0% was associated with increased mortality (HR: 1.337; 95% confidence interval: 1.038 to 1.722; p = 0.024), whereas LVEF ≤30% was not (HR: 1.055; 95% confidence interval: 0.794 to 1.403; p = 0.711).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with secondary MR, impaired LV GLS was independently associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, whereas LVEF was not. LV GLS may therefore be useful in the risk stratification of patients with secondary MR.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to demonstrate the prognostic value of LV GLS over LVEF in patients with secondary MR.
METHODS: A total of 650 patients (mean 66 ± 11 years of age, 68% men) with significant secondary MR were included. The study population was subdivided based on the LV GLS value at which the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was >1 using a spline curve analysis (LV GLS <7.0%, impaired LV systolic function vs. LV GLS ≥7.0%, preserved LV systolic function). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 56 (interquartile range: 28 to 106 months) months, 334 (51%) patients died. Patients with a more impaired LV GLS showed significantly higher mortality rates at 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up (13%, 23%, and 44%, respectively) when compared with patients with more preserved LV systolic function (5%, 14%, and 31%, respectively). On multivariable analysis, LV GLS <7.0% was associated with increased mortality (HR: 1.337; 95% confidence interval: 1.038 to 1.722; p = 0.024), whereas LVEF ≤30% was not (HR: 1.055; 95% confidence interval: 0.794 to 1.403; p = 0.711).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with secondary MR, impaired LV GLS was independently associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, whereas LVEF was not. LV GLS may therefore be useful in the risk stratification of patients with secondary MR.