Comparison of left atrial deformation parameters between renal transplant and hemodialysis patients.
Hemodialysis
Left atrial function
Renal transplantation
Speckle tracking echocardiography
Strain
Strain rate
Journal
Cardiovascular ultrasound
ISSN: 1476-7120
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Ultrasound
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101159952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Feb 2022
25 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
30
11
2021
accepted:
17
02
2022
entrez:
26
2
2022
pubmed:
27
2
2022
medline:
3
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Renal transplantation (RT) has been demonstrated to improve left ventricular systolic function. However, only few studies have attempted to reveal the effects of transplantation on left atrial (LA) function. In our study, we aimed to compare LA function between RT and hemodialysis patients. This cross-sectional study included 75 consecutive patients with RT, and 75 age- and gender-matched patients on maintenance hemodialysis. LA strain and strain rate (SR) analyzed by two-dimensional (2D) speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) were compared between the groups in addition to standard echocardiographic parameters. LA strain during reservoir phase (29.88 ± 5.76% vs 26.11 ± 5.74%, P < .001), LA strain during conduit phase (- 15.28 ± 5.00% vs - 12.92 ± 4.38%, P = .003), and LA strain during contraction phase (- 14.60 ± 3.32% vs - 13.19 ± 3.95%, P = .020) were higher in the transplantation group. Similarly, LA peak SR during reservoir phase (1.54 ± 0.33 s LA function assessed by 2D STE was better in RT patients than hemodialysis patients. This may suggest favorable effects of RT on LA function.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Renal transplantation (RT) has been demonstrated to improve left ventricular systolic function. However, only few studies have attempted to reveal the effects of transplantation on left atrial (LA) function. In our study, we aimed to compare LA function between RT and hemodialysis patients.
METHODS
METHODS
This cross-sectional study included 75 consecutive patients with RT, and 75 age- and gender-matched patients on maintenance hemodialysis. LA strain and strain rate (SR) analyzed by two-dimensional (2D) speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) were compared between the groups in addition to standard echocardiographic parameters.
RESULTS
RESULTS
LA strain during reservoir phase (29.88 ± 5.76% vs 26.11 ± 5.74%, P < .001), LA strain during conduit phase (- 15.28 ± 5.00% vs - 12.92 ± 4.38%, P = .003), and LA strain during contraction phase (- 14.60 ± 3.32% vs - 13.19 ± 3.95%, P = .020) were higher in the transplantation group. Similarly, LA peak SR during reservoir phase (1.54 ± 0.33 s
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
LA function assessed by 2D STE was better in RT patients than hemodialysis patients. This may suggest favorable effects of RT on LA function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35216587
doi: 10.1186/s12947-022-00275-4
pii: 10.1186/s12947-022-00275-4
pmc: PMC8881848
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Nephrol. 2019 May 2;20(1):152
pubmed: 31046698
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jan 4;45(1):87-92
pubmed: 15629380
Am J Cardiol. 2004 Nov 1;94(9):1208-10
pubmed: 15518627
J Echocardiogr. 2016 Jun;14(2):71-8
pubmed: 26861540
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Apr;17(4):355-83
pubmed: 26864186
Kidney Blood Press Res. 2016;41(5):701-709
pubmed: 27721315
Ren Fail. 2004 Mar;26(2):141-7
pubmed: 15287197
N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 2;341(23):1725-30
pubmed: 10580071
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Feb;23(2):172-80
pubmed: 20152699
Kardiol Pol. 2013;71(4):341-51
pubmed: 23788339
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007 Apr;20(4):359-65
pubmed: 17400114
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Transplant Proc. 2008 Sep;40(7):2327-9
pubmed: 18790225
Circulation. 2005 Jul 19;112(3):304-6
pubmed: 16027269
Echocardiography. 2016 Oct;33(10):1495-1503
pubmed: 27352813
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003 Mar;18(3):463-6
pubmed: 12584262
Echocardiography. 2001 Aug;18(6):457-62
pubmed: 11567589
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2021 Feb;34(2):166-175
pubmed: 33223356
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2002 Aug;283(2):H792-9
pubmed: 12124229
Physiol Res. 2009;58(5):613-621
pubmed: 19093713
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Nov;34(11):1731-1739
pubmed: 29948637
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Aug;24(8):898-908
pubmed: 21665431
Rev Port Cardiol. 1998 Feb;17(2):145-52
pubmed: 9587210
Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jun 1;97(11):1661-6
pubmed: 16728234
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016 Apr;29(4):359-67
pubmed: 26743735
Echocardiography. 2014 Sep;31(8):956-64
pubmed: 24447093
Transplant Proc. 2008 Jan-Feb;40(1):107-10
pubmed: 18261559
Transplantation. 2002 Dec 15;74(11):1580-7
pubmed: 12490792
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011 Nov;26(11):3732-9
pubmed: 21430181
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Jun;25(6):1950-4
pubmed: 20075436
Echocardiography. 2008 Jul;25(6):569-74
pubmed: 18652004
Transplant Proc. 2002 Nov;34(7):2539-40
pubmed: 12431516
Echocardiography. 2016 Feb;33(2):233-41
pubmed: 26660393
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 May;27(5):463-78
pubmed: 24656882
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Oct 20;66(16):1779-1787
pubmed: 26483101