Right ventricular strain in Anderson-Fabry disease.
Anderson-Fabry disease
Cardiomyopathy
Right ventricle
Speckle tracking
Journal
International journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1874-1754
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8200291
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2021
01 05 2021
Historique:
received:
14
09
2020
revised:
08
02
2021
accepted:
11
02
2021
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
29
5
2021
entrez:
18
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
2D speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) is superior to standard echocardiography in the assessment of subtle right ventricle (RV) systolic dysfunction. In this study we aimed to: 1) test the hypothesis that 2DSTE may unveil subtle RV systolic dysfunction in patients with Fabry disease; 2) investigate whether the physiologic difference between the 3-segment (RV-FWS) and the 6-segment (RV-GLS) RV strain (∆RV strain) is preserved in Fabry patients. Standard echocardiography and 2DSTE were performed in 49 Fabry patients and 49 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Fabry patients were divided in two groups according to the presence/absence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH+: left ventricular wall thickness > 12 mm, 49% of total Fabry patients). RV systolic function assessed by standard echocardiography was normal in the majority of Fabry patients (92%) while RV-GLS and RV-FWS were impaired in about 40%. RV-GLS and RV-FWS were significantly worse in patients LVH+ vs LVH- and vs controls (RV-GLS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.8 ± -3.1% p<0.001; LVH+ vs controls: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.9 ± -2.8% p<0.001; RV-FWS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.7 ± -3.8% p = 0.002, LVH+ vs controls -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.8 ± -3.9% p<0.001). No difference was found between LVH- patients and controls in both RV-GLS (p = 0.65) and RV-FWS (p = 0.79). ∆RV strain was similar among the groups. In Fabry cardiomyopathy impaired RV-GLS and RV-FWS is a common finding, while RV strain is preserved in Fabry patients without overt cardiac involvement. The physiologic difference between RV-FWS and RV-GLS is maintained in Fabry patients, regardless of the presence of cardiomyopathy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
2D speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) is superior to standard echocardiography in the assessment of subtle right ventricle (RV) systolic dysfunction. In this study we aimed to: 1) test the hypothesis that 2DSTE may unveil subtle RV systolic dysfunction in patients with Fabry disease; 2) investigate whether the physiologic difference between the 3-segment (RV-FWS) and the 6-segment (RV-GLS) RV strain (∆RV strain) is preserved in Fabry patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Standard echocardiography and 2DSTE were performed in 49 Fabry patients and 49 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Fabry patients were divided in two groups according to the presence/absence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH+: left ventricular wall thickness > 12 mm, 49% of total Fabry patients). RV systolic function assessed by standard echocardiography was normal in the majority of Fabry patients (92%) while RV-GLS and RV-FWS were impaired in about 40%. RV-GLS and RV-FWS were significantly worse in patients LVH+ vs LVH- and vs controls (RV-GLS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.8 ± -3.1% p<0.001; LVH+ vs controls: -18.4 ± -4.3% vs -23.9 ± -2.8% p<0.001; RV-FWS: LVH+ vs LVH-: -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.7 ± -3.8% p = 0.002, LVH+ vs controls -21.8 ± -5.3% vs -26.8 ± -3.9% p<0.001). No difference was found between LVH- patients and controls in both RV-GLS (p = 0.65) and RV-FWS (p = 0.79). ∆RV strain was similar among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In Fabry cardiomyopathy impaired RV-GLS and RV-FWS is a common finding, while RV strain is preserved in Fabry patients without overt cardiac involvement. The physiologic difference between RV-FWS and RV-GLS is maintained in Fabry patients, regardless of the presence of cardiomyopathy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33600844
pii: S0167-5273(21)00291-6
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.02.038
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
84-90Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest.