4.4 Article

Prognostic Utility of Right Ventricular Free Wall Strain in Low Risk Patients After Orthotopic Heart Transplantation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 11, 页码 1890-1896

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.03.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle-tracking echocardiography is a sensitive measure of regional left and right ventricular (LV and RV) dysfunction, before onset of overt systolic dysfunction. We sought to evaluate the prognostic utility of measuring LV-GLS and RV free wall strain (FWS) in low risk patients at 1 year after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). We retrospectively studied 96 OHT recipients (age 52 14 years, 64% men) free of antibody-mediated rejection or moderate to severe coronary allograft vasculOpathy (CAV, grade 2 to 3) at 1 year after transplant. LV-GLS and RV-FWS were calculated using EchoPAC software. Cox models were developed after adjusting for the Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score (post-transplant risk score), with the primary outcome of death, moderate to severe CAV, or treated rejection. At 1 year after transplant, LV ejection fraction and RV fractional area change (FAC) were 58 7% and 42 10%, respectively. LV-GLS was 17.0 3.3% and RV-FWS 16.4 4.5%. At an average follow-up of 4.5 years, 28 patients met the primary end point (10 death, 5 vasculopathy, 17 rejection). In sequential Cox models, markers of RV function were associated with the primary outcome (RV-FAC, p = 0.012; RV-FWS, p = 0.022), while LV ejection fraction and LV-GLS were not. We conclude that in low risk patients 1 year after OHT, markers of RV function (RV-FAC and RV-FWS) are independently associated with incident rejection, CAV, and death. Markers of RV dysfunction could potentially be incorporated into risk scores and future prospective studies to risk stratify patients after OHT. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据