Global longitudinal strain is associated with better outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve
/ diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Male
Recovery of Function
Retrospective Studies
Severity of Illness Index
Stroke Volume
Time Factors
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Remodeling
Clinical outcomes
Echocardiography
Global longitudinal strain
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Journal
BMC cardiovascular disorders
ISSN: 1471-2261
Titre abrégé: BMC Cardiovasc Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968539
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 06 2020
03 06 2020
Historique:
received:
26
12
2019
accepted:
27
05
2020
entrez:
5
6
2020
pubmed:
5
6
2020
medline:
12
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Parameters that mark the timing of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are incompletely defined. This study aims to identify the dynamics of LV strain derived from speckle tracking echocardiography in a cohort of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR and its correlation with postprocedural outcomes. We selected 150 consecutive patients (82 ± 4 years old, STS score 6.4 ± 6.2) who underwent transfemoral TAVR between 07/2016 and 12/2017 at our tertiary care center. All patients were evaluated at baseline, 1 week after TAVR, and 3 months following TAVR. The global longitudinal strain (GLS) 1 week following TAVR was comparable to that at baseline (- 15,9 ± 4.3 vs - 16.8 ± 4.1; p = NS) but significantly improved at 3 months following TAVR (- 15.9 ± 4.3% vs. -19.5 ± 3.5%; p < 0.001). No significant changes in global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) were detectable. The ejection fraction was significantly improved 1 week after the TAVR procedure. The baseline GLS correlated directly with the complication rate (R = 0.36, p = 0.005). The linear regression analysis showed that the main predictors of the improvement in the GLS at 3 months in our cohort were baseline GRS and GCS. GLS improves at 3 months after TAVR, while LV ejection fraction does not show a substantial change, signaling an early recovery of LV longitudinal function after the intervention. Additionally, GLS has a direct correlation with the postprocedural outcomes. GLS improvement might emerge as a valuable parameter for a tailored follow-up in TAVR patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Parameters that mark the timing of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are incompletely defined. This study aims to identify the dynamics of LV strain derived from speckle tracking echocardiography in a cohort of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR and its correlation with postprocedural outcomes.
METHODS
We selected 150 consecutive patients (82 ± 4 years old, STS score 6.4 ± 6.2) who underwent transfemoral TAVR between 07/2016 and 12/2017 at our tertiary care center. All patients were evaluated at baseline, 1 week after TAVR, and 3 months following TAVR.
RESULTS
The global longitudinal strain (GLS) 1 week following TAVR was comparable to that at baseline (- 15,9 ± 4.3 vs - 16.8 ± 4.1; p = NS) but significantly improved at 3 months following TAVR (- 15.9 ± 4.3% vs. -19.5 ± 3.5%; p < 0.001). No significant changes in global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) were detectable. The ejection fraction was significantly improved 1 week after the TAVR procedure. The baseline GLS correlated directly with the complication rate (R = 0.36, p = 0.005). The linear regression analysis showed that the main predictors of the improvement in the GLS at 3 months in our cohort were baseline GRS and GCS.
CONCLUSION
GLS improves at 3 months after TAVR, while LV ejection fraction does not show a substantial change, signaling an early recovery of LV longitudinal function after the intervention. Additionally, GLS has a direct correlation with the postprocedural outcomes. GLS improvement might emerge as a valuable parameter for a tailored follow-up in TAVR patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32493384
doi: 10.1186/s12872-020-01556-4
pii: 10.1186/s12872-020-01556-4
pmc: PMC7268397
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
267Subventions
Organisme : European Society of Cardiology
ID : R-2016-013
Pays : International
Références
J Heart Valve Dis. 2004 May;13 Suppl 1:S55-8
pubmed: 15225004
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007 May;20(5):539-51
pubmed: 17485001
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Sep 1;5(5):613-20
pubmed: 22869821
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Nov;27(11):1133-42
pubmed: 25125314
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Dec;8(12):1351-1359
pubmed: 26577264
Heart. 2014 Nov;100(21):1673-80
pubmed: 24860005
Echocardiography. 2016 May;33(5):742-8
pubmed: 26676176
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Jan;147(1):362-369.e8
pubmed: 23312984
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;15(3):324-31
pubmed: 24057661
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jul;14(7):611-44
pubmed: 23733442
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Nov 6;72(19):2360-2379
pubmed: 30384893
Circulation. 2007 Jun 5;115(22):2856-64
pubmed: 17533183
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Feb;28(2):183-93
pubmed: 25623220
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2477-84
pubmed: 25788234
Circulation. 2009 Aug 18;120(7):577-84
pubmed: 19652094
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;228:633-637
pubmed: 27883973
J Hypertens. 2016 Jun;34(6):1195-200
pubmed: 27035737
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 Jan;10(1):1-25
pubmed: 19065003
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 1;167(5):2239-43
pubmed: 22766243
Am J Cardiol. 2014 Dec 15;114(12):1875-81
pubmed: 25438916
Am Heart J. 2001 Sep;142(3):556-62
pubmed: 11526373
Heart. 2013 Aug;99(16):1185-91
pubmed: 23749779
Circulation. 2004 Sep 14;110(11):1473-6
pubmed: 15226213
Echocardiography. 2013 Jan;30(1):37-44
pubmed: 22985174
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 21;37(36):2768-2801
pubmed: 27567406
JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Mar 1;4(3):287-294
pubmed: 30810702
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jun;29(5):1007-15
pubmed: 23271458
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Nov;28(11):1366-75
pubmed: 26341122
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Jul;23(7):685-713; quiz 786-8
pubmed: 20620859
Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2006 Jun;288(6):565-78
pubmed: 16705738
Echocardiography. 2019 Jan;36(1):28-37
pubmed: 30484901
Circulation. 2015 Aug 25;132(8):741-7
pubmed: 26304665
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Dec;17(12):1321-1360
pubmed: 27422899
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2012 Mar 26;10:15
pubmed: 22448716
Lancet. 2006 Jan 28;367(9507):356-67
pubmed: 16443044
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 11;13(10):e0205190
pubmed: 30308001
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Aug 15;116(4):595-603
pubmed: 26089011
Eur Heart J. 2003 Aug;24(15):1437-46
pubmed: 12909073
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Sep 10;62(11):1002-12
pubmed: 23727214
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Mar;26(3):246-54
pubmed: 23306032
Eur Heart J. 2003 May;24(10):883-96
pubmed: 12714020
Echocardiography. 2015 Jun;32(6):928-36
pubmed: 25323699