3.8 Article

Can myocardial work indices contribute to the exploration of patients with cardiac amyloidosis?

期刊

OPEN HEART
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001346

关键词

heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; echocardiography; restrictive cardiomyopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is a life-threatening restrictive cardiomyopathy. Identifying patients with a poor prognosis is essential to ensure appropriate care. The aim of this study was to compare myocardial work (MW) indices with standard echocardiographic parameters in predicting mortality among patients with CA. Methods Clinical, biological and transthoracic echocardiographic parameters were retrospectively compared among 118 patients with CA. Global work index (GWI) was calculated as the area of left ventricular pressure-strain loop. Global work efficiency (GWE) was defined as percentage ratio of constructive work to sum of constructive and wasted works. Sixty-one (52%) patients performed a cardiopulmonary exercise. Results GWI, GWE, global longitudinal strain (GLS), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and myocardial contraction fraction (MCF) were correlated with N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (R=-0.518, R=-0.383, R=-0.553, R=-0.382 and R=-0.336, respectively; p<0.001). GWI and GLS were correlated with peak oxygen consumption (R=0.359 and R=0.313, respectively; p<0.05). Twenty-eight (24%) patients died during a median follow-up of 11 (4-19) months. The best cut-off values to predict all-cause mortality for GWI, GWE, GLS, LVEF and MCF were 937 mm Hg/%, 89%, 10%, 52% and 15%, respectively. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of GWE, GLS, GWI, LVEF and MCF were 0.689, 0.631, 0.626, 0.511 and 0.504, respectively. Conclusion In CA population, MW indices are well correlated with known prognosis markers and are better than LVEF and MCF in predicting mortality. However, MW does not perform better than GLS.

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

3.8
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