Myocardial strain assessment using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
Left ventricular strain
Outcome
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 10 2021
21 10 2021
Historique:
received:
30
04
2021
accepted:
16
08
2021
entrez:
21
10
2021
pubmed:
22
10
2021
medline:
4
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used in the evaluation of patients who are potential candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy to assess left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial fibrosis, and etiology of cardiomyopathy. It is unclear whether CMR-derived strain measurements are predictive of appropriate shocks and death among patients who receive an ICD. We evaluated the prognostic value of LV strain parameters on feature-tracking (FT) CMR in patients who underwent subsequent ICD implant for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Consecutive patients from 2 Canadian tertiary care hospitals who underwent ICD implant and had a pre-implant CMR scan were included. Using FT-CMR, a single, blinded, reader measured LV global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS), and radial (GRS) strain. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess the associations between strain measurements and the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death or appropriate ICD shock that was independently ascertained. Of 364 patients (mean 61 years, mean LVEF 32%), 64(17.6%) died and 118(32.4%) reached the primary endpoint over a median follow-up of 62 months. Univariate analyses showed significant associations between GLS, GCS, and GRS and appropriate ICD shocks or death (all p < 0.01). In multivariable Cox models incorporating LVEF, GLS remained an independent predictor of both the primary endpoint (HR 1.05 per 1% higher GLS, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.010) and death alone (HR 1.06 per 1% higher GLS, 95% CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.003). There was no significant interaction between GLS and indication for ICD implant, presence of ischemic heart disease or late gadolinium enhancement (all p > 0.30). GLS by FT-CMR is an independent predictor of appropriate shocks or mortality in ICD patients, beyond conventional prognosticators including LVEF. Further study is needed to elucidate the role of LV strain analysis to refine risk stratification in routine assessment of ICD treatment benefit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used in the evaluation of patients who are potential candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy to assess left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial fibrosis, and etiology of cardiomyopathy. It is unclear whether CMR-derived strain measurements are predictive of appropriate shocks and death among patients who receive an ICD. We evaluated the prognostic value of LV strain parameters on feature-tracking (FT) CMR in patients who underwent subsequent ICD implant for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death.
METHODS
Consecutive patients from 2 Canadian tertiary care hospitals who underwent ICD implant and had a pre-implant CMR scan were included. Using FT-CMR, a single, blinded, reader measured LV global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS), and radial (GRS) strain. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess the associations between strain measurements and the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death or appropriate ICD shock that was independently ascertained.
RESULTS
Of 364 patients (mean 61 years, mean LVEF 32%), 64(17.6%) died and 118(32.4%) reached the primary endpoint over a median follow-up of 62 months. Univariate analyses showed significant associations between GLS, GCS, and GRS and appropriate ICD shocks or death (all p < 0.01). In multivariable Cox models incorporating LVEF, GLS remained an independent predictor of both the primary endpoint (HR 1.05 per 1% higher GLS, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.010) and death alone (HR 1.06 per 1% higher GLS, 95% CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.003). There was no significant interaction between GLS and indication for ICD implant, presence of ischemic heart disease or late gadolinium enhancement (all p > 0.30).
CONCLUSIONS
GLS by FT-CMR is an independent predictor of appropriate shocks or mortality in ICD patients, beyond conventional prognosticators including LVEF. Further study is needed to elucidate the role of LV strain analysis to refine risk stratification in routine assessment of ICD treatment benefit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34670574
doi: 10.1186/s12968-021-00806-4
pii: 10.1186/s12968-021-00806-4
pmc: PMC8529844
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Gadolinium
AU0V1LM3JT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2016 Aug;5(2):110-6
pubmed: 27617089
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 1;63(25 Pt A):2751-68
pubmed: 24703918
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 11;54(7):618-24
pubmed: 19660692
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1419-1429
pubmed: 29361479
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Jan 18;15:8
pubmed: 23331550
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 May;28(5):587-96
pubmed: 25577185
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Feb;3(2):144-51
pubmed: 20159640
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jul;7(4):593-600
pubmed: 24902587
Radiol Clin North Am. 2015 Mar;53(2):369-95
pubmed: 25727001
Circulation. 2018 Sep 25;138(13):e272-e391
pubmed: 29084731
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004 Jun;17(6):630-3
pubmed: 15163933
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Sep 30;52(14):1111-21
pubmed: 18804736
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367(24):2275-83
pubmed: 23131066
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Dec 17;20(1):83
pubmed: 30554567
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Feb;13(2 Pt 2):562-572
pubmed: 31202762
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Nov;12(11):e009156
pubmed: 31735067
Heart. 2007 Jan;93(1):122-9
pubmed: 17170353
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019 May 16;21(1):28
pubmed: 31096987
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 May;8(5):540-549
pubmed: 25890580
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Dec;8(12):1444-1460
pubmed: 26699113
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2013 Feb;11(2):221-31
pubmed: 23405842
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Aug;16(8):848-52
pubmed: 25736307
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):225-37
pubmed: 15659722
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jul;10(7):
pubmed: 28637807
Heart. 2014 Nov;100(21):1673-80
pubmed: 24860005
N Engl J Med. 2002 Mar 21;346(12):877-83
pubmed: 11907286
Circulation. 2000 Aug 15;102(7):748-54
pubmed: 10942742
Am J Cardiol. 2002 Jul 1;90(1):29-34
pubmed: 12088775
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Aug 12;52(7):541-50
pubmed: 18687248
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1221-30
pubmed: 27571011
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Mar 21;47(6):1161-6
pubmed: 16545646
N Engl J Med. 1997 Nov 27;337(22):1576-83
pubmed: 9411221
Circulation. 2000 Mar 21;101(11):1297-302
pubmed: 10725290
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Mar 10;17:25
pubmed: 25890093
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 9;351(24):2481-8
pubmed: 15590950
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Apr;41(4):1000-12
pubmed: 24677420
Eur Heart J. 2000 Aug;21(16):1387-96
pubmed: 10952828