Echocardiographic evaluation of myocardial strain in patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
ADVANCES IN INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY 2015;
11:95-9. [PMID:
26161100 PMCID:
PMC4495124 DOI:
10.5114/pwki.2015.52281]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2015] [Revised: 03/22/2015] [Accepted: 03/26/2015] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction
Echocardiographic evaluation of regional myocardial function helps to assess the efficacy of therapeutic interventions and to predict the prognosis and clinical outcomes.
Aim
To assess whether myocardial strain can be useful in estimation of left ventricle (LV) function in patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
Material and methods
Twenty-six patients with severe aortic stenosis, who successfully underwent TAVI, were enrolled in the study. Left ventricular peak systolic longitudinal strain (LV PSLS) was obtained before and 1 year after the procedure. Analysis included the potent influence of factors such as sex, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), type of prosthesis implanted or the type of the approach on LV PSLS values.
Results
We observed a significant improvement in LV PSLS values after TAVI (–10.9 ±5.7 vs. –13.4 ±4.7, p < 0.05). Men had better improvement in LV PSLS after TAVI, but their starting values were considerably lower (M: –10.7 ±4.5 before vs. –13.3 ±4.9 after, p < 0.05; W: –11.8 ±6.8 before vs. –11.9 ±5.6 after, p = NS). Patients with starting LVEF ≤ 40% benefited from the procedure (LV PSLS: –10.3 ±6.4 before vs. –13.7 ±2.9 after, p < 0.05), but in the group of patients with the higher starting LVEF no significant changes in LV PSLS were observed. We also did not note any differences in LV PSLS depending on type of the prosthesis implemented (Edwards Sapiens/CoreValve). Patients in whom the prostheses were implemented via the femoral approach only presented significant increase in LV PSLS values (before: –10.4 ±6.7 vs. after: –13.6 ±3.7, p < 0.05).
Conclusions
The TAVI results in improvement of LV systolic function according to LV PSLS values. Some factors, especially lower baseline LVEF, are related to increased benefit in LV PSLS after TAVI.
Collapse