P4372Left atrial strain: a potential marker of early diastolic dysfunction in patients with Marfan syndrome

Background/Introduction

Previous studies using conventional echocardiographic measurements have reported subclinical left diastolic dysfunction in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). Left atrial strain (LAS) has been shown to be an accurate predictor of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. However, there is no evidence regarding the use of LAS in MFS.

Purpose

To assess feasibility of LAS and compare LAS derived measurements along with traditional diastolic parameters in MFS patients vs healthy controls.

Methods

46 MFS patients (normal LV ejection fraction, no previous cardiovascular surgery, no significant valvular regurgitation) vs. 20 healthy controls (age and sex-matched). We performed LAS analysis using 2D speckle-tracking (QLAB 10, Philips). LA strain was determined as the average value of the longitudinal deformation (7 segments) in the apical 4-chamber view (RR gating).

Results

LAS analysis was feasible in 40 MFS patients (87%). All participants had normal diastolic function according to current guidelines (ASE/EACVI 2016). MFS patients showed lower TDI e' velocities and higher average E/e' ratio, but still within normal range. Similarly, LVEF was normal but slightly reduced in MFS patients. LA strain and strain rate parameters during reservoir and conduit phase were significantly impaired in MFS patients compared to controls.

MFS vs controls MFS patients (n=40) Controls (n=20) p MFS patients (n=40) Controls (n=20) p Age 33.8±12.4 34.4±8.3 0.846 Septal e' (cm/s) 9.7±2.5 11.7±2.3 0.006 Male (%) 24 (60%) 12 (60%) 1.000 Average E/e' ratio 6.8±1.5 5.5±1.1 0.002 SBP (mmHg) 120.3±12.4 120.1±9.4 0.969 TR velocity (cm/s) 208.6±21.4 201.6±22.9 0.390 DBP (mmHg) 72.0±10.1 67.1±6.2 0.069 LAVi (ml/m2) 23.5±7.1 25.5±4.8 0.260 Aortic root (mm) 40.3±4.6 31.7±3.7 <0.001 LASr (%) 32.6±8.8 43.0±8.3 <0.001 LVEF (%) 60.9±5.6 64.2±4.2 0.022 LAScd (%) −20.1±8.0 −29.4±5.5 <0.001 E-wave (cm/s) 74.6±16.5 76.7±16.5 0.651 LASct (%) −12.8±6.1 −13.6±5.2 0.622 A-wave (cm/s) 55.2±10.9 52.0±12.8 0.327 LASRr 2.02±0.49 2.31±0.43 0.030 E/A ratio 1.4±0.4 1.5±0.4 0.287 LASRcd −2.22±0.61 −3.07±0.68 <0.001 Lateral e' (cm/s) 13.0±3.6 16.3±3.3 0.002 LASRct −2.24±0.90 −2.35±0.75 0.600 SBP: Systolic blood pressure. DBP: Diastolic blood pressure. LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction. LAVi: Left atrial volume index. LAS: Left atrial strain. LASR: Left atrial strain rate. (r): Reservoir. (cd): Conduit. (ct): Contraction.

Example of LA strain and strain rate

Conclusion

MFS patients showed a subtle impairment in diastolic function compared to controls. Although further evidence is needed, LAS derived parameters could be early markers of diastolic dysfunction in this group of patients.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Programa de Actividades de I+D de la Comunidad de Madrid

P2472Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography in heart transplant patients: five year follow-up of right and left ventricular function

Background

Evolution of left and right ventricular (LV and RV) function after heart transplantation (HT) has not been well described. Our objective was to evaluate the normal evolution of echocardiographic parameters of both ventricles and to explore if there is a link between the decrease of strain values and acute rejection (AR) or coronary allograft vasculopathy (CAV)

Methods

We followed 29 HT recipients with serial echocardiograms performed between 2011 and 2018, with a median follow-up of 5 years. LV global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) was analyzed by speckle tracking in 12 LV segments in 4 and 2 chamber views, and RV free wall longitudinal strain (RV free Wall LS) was measured in 4 chamber view. Acute rejection was diagnosed by EMB following our HT protocol. We take into consideration only moderate or severe rejection episodes (grade ≥2R).The presence of CAV was studied by coronariography or IVUS one year post-HT.

Results

As shown in the table below, LVEF was preserved from the begining of the follow up while LV GLS reached the normality in the 6th month, and both remained in normal ranges untill the 5th year. Regarding RV function, TAPSE was impaired in the early post-HT period and increased progressively and reached normality 1 year after HT. RV lateral wall LS rose during follow-up as well, reaching normal values 6 months after HT. Nevertheless, we noticed an impairment in this parameter at 5 years (−20.1±2.7, p=0.001), although it remained within normal ranges compared to guidelines reference parameters. We did not find any correlation between any parameter evaluated and the presence of AR or CAV at five years of follow-up.

LV and RV function parameters LVEF LV GLS TAPSE FAC RV free wall LS Basal (14 days) 63.0±7.9 −17.2±3.6 12.1±2.9* 43.7±9.8 −19.3±4.2 3 months 65.0±8.6 −17.7±2.8 14.8±3.4* 45.3±8.2 −22.0±4.6 6 months 65.8±9.6 −18.7±3.4 16.1±3.6 44.6±9.6 −24.6±4.9* 1 year 63.5±8.1 −18.1±2.2 17.1±4.1 44.0±8.1 −26.7±7.1* 2 years 63.8±6.8 −18.3±9.0 19.4±3.7 45.3±7.9 −27.6±6.3* 5 years 64.4±7.3 −18.1±3.3 17.9±3.9 46.6±12.1 −20.1±2.8 P (Anova) 0.85 0.85 <0.001 0.82 <0.001

Conclusion

As we show in this series of HT recipients with uneventful postoperative course, all LV and RV function parameters showed normal values 1 year after HT and manteined them during long-term follow-up. The presence of AR or CAV did not have any influence in ventricular function.

[Maze technique for the treatment of auricular fibrillation: initial experience]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The MAZE procedure was developed as a surgical approach to the management of patients with atrial fibrillation refractory to medical treatment. This study seeks to identify the risk and benefits of adding the MAZE procedure in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing surgery for underlying organic cardiac disorders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since november 1993, we have performed 10 interventions with the MAZE procedure, for the treatment of refractory atrial fibrillation. The indication to perform the technique was systemic embolism in 5 patients, contraindication for the anticoagulant treatment in two cases and no response to antiarrhythmic treatment in 5 cases. Two patients had more than one indication. In all the cases another surgical procedure was performed, 5 replacements of mitral valve, a mitral repair, one tricuspid repair and tree repairs of an atrial septal defect.

RESULTS

Soon after surgery 9 patients were in sinus rhythm, and one in atrial fibrillation. Four patients needed atrial pacing during the first days. One patient required a pacemaker due to symptomatic sinus bradycardia. During the first 3 months, 4 patients had episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and flutter. One patient died suddenly one month after surgery. Seven patients have completed two years of follow-up, and are in stable sinus rhythm, in functional class I and free of antiarrhythmic drugs. All of them have echocardiographic evidence of mechanical activity in both atria. Left atrium had been reduced from 5.3 +/- 0.7 cm to 4.5 +/- 0.7 cm (p < 0.05). No patient has presented new embolic events.

CONCLUSIONS

The MAZE procedure is a good choice in selected patients with atrial fibrillation refractory to medical treatment, or a precedent of systemic embolism. However, several problems can complicate the patient's course.