Comparison Between 3D Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMRI) in the Measurement of Left Ventricular Volumes and Ejection Fraction

Cardiac reverse remodelling by imaging parameters with recent changes to guideline medical therapy in heart failure

Recently established heart failure therapies, including sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, and cardiac resynchronization therapy, have led to both clinical and structural improvements. Reverse remodelling describes the structural and functional responses to therapy and has been shown to correlate with patients' clinical response, acting as a biomarker for treatment success. The introduction of these new therapeutic agents in addition to advances in non-invasive cardiac imaging has led to an expansion in the evaluation and the validation of cardiac reverse remodelling. Methods including volumetric changes as well as strain and myocardial work have all been shown to be non-invasive end-points of reverse remodelling, correlating with clinical outcomes. Our review summarizes the current available evidence on reverse remodelling in heart failure by the non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques, in particular transthoracic echocardiography.

Left Ventricular Systolic Function After 3 Months of SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy in Heart Failure Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Not much is known about the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular (LV) systolic function in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).We prospectively included 59 outpatients with HFrEF: 41 patients received SGLT2i with OMT (SGLT2i+ group), whereas eighteen patients received OMT without SGLT2i (SGLT2i- group). Myocardial work index (MWI), 3D ejection fraction (3D LVEF), and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were measured at baseline and after 3 months following treatment. At 3-month follow-up, the SGLT2i+ group showed significantly greater improvement in MWI than the SGLT2i- group. In both groups, there was a significant improvement in 3D LVEF and LV GLS, circulating NT-proBNP levels, and NYHA functional class, with significantly greater improvement in the SGLT2i+ group.In conclusion, the addition of SGLT2i to fully optimized background medical therapy resulted in a greater improvement of LV systolic function among outpatients with HFrEF.

Multimodality imaging of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

The diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) requires multimodality imaging. Transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) remains the first-line imaging modality to diagnose HCM identifying morphology and obstruction, which includes left ventricular outflow obstruction, midcavitary obstruction and systolic anterior motion. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can adjudicate equivocal cases, rule out alternative diagnoses and evaluate for risk factors of sudden cardiac death. Imaging with TTE or transesophageal echocardiogram can also guide alcohol septal ablation or surgical myectomy respectively. Furthermore, TTE can guide medical management of these patients by following peak gradients. Thus, multimodality imaging in HCM is crucial throughout the course of these patients' care.

Defining Heart Failure Based on Imaging the Heart and Beyond

Water and salt retention, in other words congestion, are fundamental to the pathophysiology of heart failure and are important therapeutic targets. Echocardiography is the key tool with which to assess cardiac structure and function in the initial diagnostic workup of patients with suspected heart failure and is essential for guiding treatment and stratifying risk. Ultrasound can also be used to identify and quantify congestion in the great veins, kidneys and lungs. More advanced imaging methods might further clarify the aetiology of heart failure and its consequences for the heart and periphery, thereby improving the efficiency and quality of care tailored with greater precision to individual patient need.

Personalized Management for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome with multiple underlying mechanisms and comorbidities that leads to a variety of clinical phenotypes. The identification and characterization of these phenotypes are essential for better understanding the precise pathophysiology of HFpEF, identifying appropriate treatment strategies, and improving patient outcomes. Despite accumulating data showing the potentiality of artificial intelligence (AI)-based phenotyping using clinical, biomarker, and imaging information from multiple dimensions in HFpEF management, contemporary guidelines and consensus do not incorporate these in daily practice. In the future, further studies are required to authenticate and substantiate these findings in order to establish a more standardized approach for clinical implementation.

Detection of myocardial dysfunction using global longitudinal strain with speckle-tracking echocardiography in patients with vs without rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disorder primarily involving the peripheral joints. Systemic involvement can occur, including myocardial dysfunction. Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) is a novel diagnostic study which is recently being used to detect subclinical cardiac dysfunction. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by STE is more sensitive than standard echocardiographic parameters to detect occult cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS

A systematic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify studies comparing the STE parameters between RA and non-RA patients.

RESULTS

Left ventricular (LV) GLS was significantly lower in patients with RA compared to non-RA patients with a standard mean difference (SMD) of -1.09 (-1.48--0.70, P < 0.001). LV Global Circumferential Strain (GCS) was reported in five studies, and it was found to be lower in RA patients with an SMD of -1.25 (-2.59--0.10; P < 0.0010). Meta regression analysis studies failed to show any significant impact of disease duration, activity, age, sex and BMI on LV GLS and RV GLS.

CONCLUSIONS

RA patients have lower LV GLS and LV GCS compared to controls suggesting impaired myocardial dysfunction. Further studies need to be done to delineate the importance of lower GLS in asymptomatic rheumatoid patients to guide disease management and risk factor modification in this selected population.

The variability of 2D and 3D transthoracic echocardiography applied in a general population : Intermodality, inter- and intraobserver variability

Assessment of the left ventricular (LV) function by three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is potentially superior to 2D echo echocardiography (2DE) for LV performance assessment. However, intra- and interobserver variation needs further investigation. We examined the intra- and interobserver variability between 2 and 3DE in a general population. In total, 150 participants from the Copenhagen City Heart Study were randomly chosen. Two observers assessed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic volumes (ESV) by 2DE and 3DE. Inter-, intraobserver and intermodality variabilities are presented as means of difference (MD), limits of agreement (LoA), coefficient of correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The lowest MD and LoA and highest r- and ICC-values was generally seen among the 3D acquisitions, with the 3D EDV interobserver as the best performing estimate (r = 0.95, ICC = 0.94). The largest MD, LoA and lowest r- and ICC-values was found in the interobserver 2D LVEF (r = 0.76, ICC = 0.63. For the intraobserver analysis, there were statistically significant differences between observations for all but 3DE EDV (p = 0.06). For interobserver analysis, there were statistically significant differences between observers for all estimates but 2DE EDV (p = 0.11), 3D ejection fraction (p = 0.9), 3DE EDV (p = 0.11) and 3D ESV (p = 0.15). Three-dimensional echocardiography is more robust and reproducible than 2DE and should be preferred for assessment of LV function.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Assessment of the Protective Effect of Remote Ischemic Postconditioning on Coronary Microcirculation after Reperfusion Therapy for Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

This study intends to evaluate the characteristics of coronary microcirculatory function in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing reperfusion and its predictive value in assessing cardiac function, myocardial activity, recovery of ventricular wall motion after infarction, and distant myocardial remodeling by cardiac magnetic resonance technique (CMRI). Materials and Methods. The 293 cases of patients with myocardial infarction treated in our hospital from August 2017 to August 2021 were selected as the subjects of this retrospective study, 13 cases were shed due to transfer and moving, and the rest were divided into 140 cases each in the emergency and elective groups according to emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and elective PCI. The patients' myocardial infarct volume ventricular volume, microcirculatory obstruction volume ventricular volume, microcirculatory obstruction volume/myocardial infarct volume, and LVEF, combined with BP and troponin T, were analysed by CMR for comparative analysis, hemodynamic, and cardiac function index differences. Results. The hemodynamics (CO, CI, SV, SI, LVSW1, and LCW) measured at different times were significantly different between the two groups; patients in the emergency group had significantly lower EDV and ESV than the elective group at 7-10 d postoperatively; and EDV, ESV, and LVEF improved in both groups after 3 months, while EDV, ESV, and LVEF improved significantly better in the emergency group than in the elective group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The myocardial infarct quality, VSM score, and ventricular wall motion abnormality score were significantly lower in the emergency group than in the elective group from 7 to 10 d after PCI; myocardial infarct quality, VSM score, and ventricular wall motion abnormality score improved in both groups at 3 months after PCI; and the degree of improvement of myocardial infarct quality and VSM score was significantly better in the emergency group than in the elective group (P < 0.05). Conclusion. Acute myocardial infarction patients with significant effect of emergency PCI treatment can be on their postmyocardial infarction left ventricular function, and in the treatment of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction diagnosis has a certain reference value.

Effects of Different LVEF Assessed by Echocardiography and CMR on the Diagnosis and Therapeutic Decisions of Cardiovascular Diseases

Aims

The impact of different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by echocardiography (EC) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) on clinical diagnosis and management that could be critical in clinical practice remains unclear. This study investigated this impact for patients who underwent both exams in a real-world clinical practice.

Methods

500 patients who underwent CMR and two-dimensional EC were retrospectively included in present study. EC-measured LVEF and CMR-measured LVEF were compared. A 50% cut-off of LVEF was chosen to assess the effect of the difference between these two modalities on disease diagnosis, and a 35% cut-off was chosen for disease management, respectively. For those patients who received device therapy or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the study compared the LVEF between EC and CMR with the current guideline for therapy recommendation.

Results

EC-LVEF and CMR-LVEF were positively correlated, but EC-LVEF was significantly larger than CMR-LVEF (P < 0.001). Three patient groups were examined: (I) CMR-LVEF ≥ 50%, (II) 35% < CMR-LVEF < 50%, and (III) CMR-LVEF ≤ 35%. Overall, 139 of 500 patients showed inconsistent measures. There were more inconsistent measures between the two modalities in group III than group I (41.6% for group III vs. 4.1% for group I). In patients who received device therapy or CABG, 97.6% of the CMR-measured LVEF were consistent with the guideline, but only 61.0% consistent EC-measured LVEF.

Conclusion

For patients with lower LVEF and planning to receive device therapy or cardiac surgery, it should be cautious to applying the recommended cut-off values to CMR-measured LVEF because its inconsistency with EC-measured LVEF.