The role of conventional echocardiographic parameters on detecting subclinical anthracycline therapy related cardiac dysfunction-The SATRACD study.
conventional echocardiography
global longitudinal strain
mitral annular peak systolic tissue Doppler velocity
mitral annular plane systolic excursion
subclinical anthracycline therapy related cardiac dysfunction
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
10
06
2022
accepted:
31
10
2022
entrez:
5
12
2022
pubmed:
6
12
2022
medline:
6
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Subclinical anthracycline therapy related cardiac dysfunction (ATRCD) can be detected with speckle tracking echocardiographic image (STE), which is not widely available in Uganda. We aimed to investigate the role of the two conventional echocardiographic parameters [mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) and mitral annular peak systolic tissue Doppler velocity (S')] on diagnosing subclinical ATRCD. 207 cancer patients who underwent anthracycline based chemotherapy were recruited at baseline and followed up until 6 months after ending anthracycline therapy. Comprehensive echocardiographic data were collected at each visit. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by STE was used as the gold standard diagnostic test to define the case of subclinical ATRCD. Data of the 200 patients who had no evidence of clinical ATRCD were analyzed. One hundred and seventy-two (86.0%) were female, with a median age of 42 years and 47 (23.5%) patients were diagnosed with subclinical ATRCD at the end of anthracycline therapy by GLS criteria. The area under the curve (AUC), cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of reduction of MAPSE (ΔMAPSE) were 0.6736 (95% CI: 0.5885, 0.7587), ≥ 2 mm, 74.5% (95% CI: 59.7%, 86.1%), 54.9% (95% CI: 46.7%, 63.0%), 33.7% (95% CI: 24.7%, 43.6%), and 87.5% (95% CI: 79.2%, 93.4%). The AUC, cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of reduction of S' (ΔS') were 0.6018 (95% CI: 0.5084, 0.6953), ≥ 0.5 cm/s, 61.7% (95% CI: 46.4%, 75.5%), 52.7% (95% CI: 44.4%, 60.9%), 29.0% (95% CI: 20.4%, 38.9%), and 76.1% (95% CI: 72.4%, 88.6%). When ΔMAPSE and ΔS' are used as parallel test, the net sensitivity and specificity is 89.4% and 28.8%, respectively, the net PPV and NPV is 27.8% and 90.0%, respectively. The ΔMAPSE and ΔS' showed fairly good accuracy, sensitivity and NPV to detect subclinical ATRCD in Ugandan cancer patients. These conventional echocardiographic parameters may serve as screening tools for detecting subclinical ATRCD in resource limited settings.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Subclinical anthracycline therapy related cardiac dysfunction (ATRCD) can be detected with speckle tracking echocardiographic image (STE), which is not widely available in Uganda. We aimed to investigate the role of the two conventional echocardiographic parameters [mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) and mitral annular peak systolic tissue Doppler velocity (S')] on diagnosing subclinical ATRCD.
Method and results
UNASSIGNED
207 cancer patients who underwent anthracycline based chemotherapy were recruited at baseline and followed up until 6 months after ending anthracycline therapy. Comprehensive echocardiographic data were collected at each visit. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by STE was used as the gold standard diagnostic test to define the case of subclinical ATRCD. Data of the 200 patients who had no evidence of clinical ATRCD were analyzed. One hundred and seventy-two (86.0%) were female, with a median age of 42 years and 47 (23.5%) patients were diagnosed with subclinical ATRCD at the end of anthracycline therapy by GLS criteria. The area under the curve (AUC), cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of reduction of MAPSE (ΔMAPSE) were 0.6736 (95% CI: 0.5885, 0.7587), ≥ 2 mm, 74.5% (95% CI: 59.7%, 86.1%), 54.9% (95% CI: 46.7%, 63.0%), 33.7% (95% CI: 24.7%, 43.6%), and 87.5% (95% CI: 79.2%, 93.4%). The AUC, cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of reduction of S' (ΔS') were 0.6018 (95% CI: 0.5084, 0.6953), ≥ 0.5 cm/s, 61.7% (95% CI: 46.4%, 75.5%), 52.7% (95% CI: 44.4%, 60.9%), 29.0% (95% CI: 20.4%, 38.9%), and 76.1% (95% CI: 72.4%, 88.6%). When ΔMAPSE and ΔS' are used as parallel test, the net sensitivity and specificity is 89.4% and 28.8%, respectively, the net PPV and NPV is 27.8% and 90.0%, respectively.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The ΔMAPSE and ΔS' showed fairly good accuracy, sensitivity and NPV to detect subclinical ATRCD in Ugandan cancer patients. These conventional echocardiographic parameters may serve as screening tools for detecting subclinical ATRCD in resource limited settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36465474
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.966230
pmc: PMC9716282
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
966230Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Zhang, Azibani, Libhaber, Nankabirwa, Okello, Kayima, Ssinabulya and Sliwa.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Eur J Heart Fail. 2011 Sep;13(9):953-60
pubmed: 21807660
Circulation. 2015 Jun 2;131(22):1981-8
pubmed: 25948538
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2006 Mar;7(2):141-6
pubmed: 15941672
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 1;63(25 Pt A):2751-68
pubmed: 24703918
Echocardiography. 2008 Sep;25(8):880-7
pubmed: 18986416
Heart. 2001 Jul;86(1):52-6
pubmed: 11410562
Heart. 2004 Oct;90(10):1151-5
pubmed: 15367511
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2016 May;17 Suppl 1:S35-44
pubmed: 27183524
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Apr 1;99(7):974-7
pubmed: 17398195
Cardiovasc J Afr. 2020 Sep/Oct;31(5):262-266
pubmed: 32628743
Heart. 2002 Jan;87(1):29-31
pubmed: 11751660
Circulation. 2015 Aug 4;132(5):402-14
pubmed: 26130119
Cancer. 1971 Oct;28(4):844-50
pubmed: 5111740
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Sep 1;5(5):596-603
pubmed: 22744937
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Oct;15(10):1063-93
pubmed: 25239940
Eur J Heart Fail. 2011 Mar;13(3):292-302
pubmed: 21112882
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Jan;27(1):83-92
pubmed: 24268372
Circulation. 2002 Mar 12;105(10):1195-201
pubmed: 11889013
Echocardiography. 2020 Apr;37(4):578-585
pubmed: 32154940
Clin Sci (Lond). 2003 Nov;105(5):591-9
pubmed: 12831396
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19;58(4):402-12
pubmed: 21757118
Egypt Heart J. 2018 Sep;70(3):203-211
pubmed: 30190647
Clin Sci (Lond). 2002 May;102(5):515-22
pubmed: 11980570
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 May 31;57(22):2263-70
pubmed: 21616287
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Dec;16(12):1331-7
pubmed: 26202086
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000 Sep;26(7):1099-108
pubmed: 11053744
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6073-5
pubmed: 19901128
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008 Jun;21(6):675-83
pubmed: 18187306
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Sep;3(5):614-22
pubmed: 20581050
Echocardiography. 2017 Nov;34(11):1593-1600
pubmed: 28942608
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 23;15(7):e0235791
pubmed: 32702711
Int J Cardiol. 2006 Oct 10;112(3):316-21
pubmed: 16309760
Afr Health Sci. 2021 Jun;21(2):647-654
pubmed: 34795719
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Mar 22;22(4):406-415
pubmed: 33432333
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Mar;10(3):
pubmed: 28264868
J Card Fail. 2009 Nov;15(9):782-9
pubmed: 19879465
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2002 Jun;18(3):181-6
pubmed: 12123309
Echocardiography. 2018 May;35(5):603-610
pubmed: 29399886
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Feb 11;63(5):447-56
pubmed: 24184245
Acta Med Scand. 1988;224(6):557-62
pubmed: 3207068
Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 14;37(15):1196-207
pubmed: 26508168