Layer‐specific deformation analysis in severe aortic valve stenosis, primary mitral valve regurgitation, and healthy individuals validated against invasive hemodynamic measurements of heart function

Aim Speckle tracking echocardiography is considered valuable in assessing left ventricular (LV) function. The method has been refined to assess deformation in different myocardial layers, but the effect of volume vs pressure overload on this pattern is unknown. The aim was to test whether layer‐spec...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2018-02, Vol.35 (2), p.170-178
Hauptverfasser: Bakkestrøm, Rine, Christensen, Nicolaj L., Wolsk, Emil, Banke, Ann, Dahl, Jordi S., Andersen, Mads J., Gustafsson, Finn, Hassager, Christian, Møller, Jacob E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim Speckle tracking echocardiography is considered valuable in assessing left ventricular (LV) function. The method has been refined to assess deformation in different myocardial layers, but the effect of volume vs pressure overload on this pattern is unknown. The aim was to test whether layer‐specific myocardial strain (LSS) obtained by speckle tracking echocardiography exhibits different patterns in conditions with different loading conditions. Methods and results Forty patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) (AVA 0.81 ± 0.15 cm2, LV ejection fraction [LVEF] 66% ± 7%), 43 patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic significant primary mitral regurgitation (MR) (effective regurgitant orifice (ERO) 0.51 (IQR 0.37–0.67) cm2, LVEF 70% ± 7%), and 23 healthy individuals (LVEF 65% ± 6%) were enrolled. Echocardiography and right heart catheterization were performed in all patients. In MR, strain values in each myocardial layer (endocardial/global longitudinal strain (GLS)/epicardial) were higher (25.0% ± 3.4%/21.6% ± 2.9%/18.8% ± 2.6%) compared to healthy individuals (22.6% ± 3.2%/19.6% ± 2.9%/17.1% ± 2.6%) and AS (20.5% ± 2.8%/17.7% ± 2.5%/14.0% ± 5.6%), P 
ISSN:0742-2822
1540-8175
DOI:10.1111/echo.13747