Regional myocardial work as determinant of heart failure in left bundle branch block

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): The Norwegian Health Association

Background

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) worsen prognosis in heart failure patients. LBBB may also cause heart failure in otherwise healthy individuals. The mechanical changes induced by LBBB are potential determinants of heart failure in these patients, but their relation to left ventricular (LV) systolic function is incompletely understood.

Purpose

This study investigates the contribution of regional contractile function to heart failure in patients with LBBB.

Methods

In 76 patients with LBBB and 11 healthy controls, myocardial strain was measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography and myocardial work by pressure-strain analysis. Patients with ischemic heart disease or myocardial scarring were excluded. LBBB patients were stratified by LV ejection fraction (EF) >50% (EFpreserved), 36-50% (EFmid), and ≤35% (EFlow). 62 LBBB patients subsequently underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation and was re-examined at 6 months.

Results

Septal work was significantly and successively reduced from controls, EFpreserved, EFmid, to EFlow (1977 ± 506, 1025 ± 342, 601 ± 494 and -41 ± 303 mmHg·%, respectively, all p < 0.01) (Figure 1). There was a strong correlation (R = 0.84, p < 0.01) between septal work and LVEF. In contrast, work in the LV lateral wall was preserved in both EFpreserved (2367 ± 459 mmHg·%) and EFmid (2252 ± 449 mmHg·%) vs controls (2062 ± 459 mmHg·%, all NS). In the EFlow group, however, LV lateral wall work was reduced (1473 ± 568 mmHg·%, p < 0.01 vs controls). Thus, lateral wall function was not correlated with LVEF in patients with LVEF >35% (NS). At six month CRT septal work was markedly increased (165 ± 485 vs 1288 ± 523 mmHg·%, p < 0.01) and LV lateral wall work reduced (1730 ± 620 vs 1264 ± 490 mmHg·%, p < 0.01). LVEF increased from 32 ± 8 to 47 ± 10 % (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Heart failure in LBBB patients is determined by degree of septal dysfunction. LV lateral wall function, on the other hand, is preserved in the early phase of heart failure and was only reduced in patients with severe heart failure. Further clinical studies should investigate if measuring LV lateral wall function can increase precision in patient selection for CRT.

Abstract Figure.

Elevated septal wall stress - a driver of left ventricular dysfunction in left bundle branch block?

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): The Norwegian Health Association

Background

Septal dysfunction is a main feature of left bundle branch block (LBBB), and increasing wall stress is a proposed mechanism of heart failure development in LBBB patients. To try to reveal the pathophysiologic pathway from dyssynchrony to heart failure, we investigated the relationship between septal and left ventricular (LV) lateral wall stress in patients with LBBB.

Hypothesis

Increased septal wall stress causes septal dysfunction in LBBB.

Methods

We included 24 LBBB-patients (65 ± 11 years, 11 males) with LV ejection fraction (EF) ranging from 18 to 67%, and 8 healthy controls (58 ± 10 years, 4 males). Wall stress was calculated at peak LV pressure (LVP) according to the law of La Place ([LVP x radius]/[wall thickness]). Wall thickness was measured using M-mode, and regional curvature was measured in mid-ventricular shortaxis from 2D echocardiographic images. We used a previously validated non-invasive method to estimate LVP from brachial blood pressure and adjusted for valvular events. Myocardial scar was ruled out by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results

Wall stress was significantly higher in septum than LV lateral wall at peak LVP (48 ± 12 vs 37 ± 11 kPa, p < 0.01) in LBBB patients, while no difference was seen in the controls (Figure A). In patients, septal wall thickening showed a strong correlation with LVEF (r = 0.77, p < 0.01) (Figure B). Similar correlation was not significant for the LV lateral wall (r = 0.13, NS). Attenuation of septal wall thickening in LBBB-patients correlated well with increasing septal wall stress (r=-0.60, p < 0.01). Wall thickening and stress did not correlate in the LV lateral wall (r=-0.14, NS).

Conclusion

Increased septal wall stress is associated with reduced systolic thickening in patients with LBBB. Septal wall thickening, in contrast to LV lateral wall thickening, was correlated to global LV function. These findings suggest that septal remodeling which could have normalized septal wall stress, was not achieved and heart failure may develop.

Abstract Figure.

P1585 Cardiac magnetic resonance estimated extracellular volume fraction, but not native T1 mapping, detects scar in patients referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Funding Acknowledgements

The study was supported by Center for Cardiological Innovation

Background

Myocardial scar burden (focal fibrosis) is associated with poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and should preferably be detected prior to device implantation. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered reference standard for scar detection, but is not available in renal failure. Diffuse fibrosis is assessed by T1 mapping CMR with or without calculation of extracellular volume fraction (ECV). The method is vulnerable to partial volume effects, thus subendocardial tissue is most often not included in mapping analyses. Whether the contrast-free native T1mapping could replace LGE in the preoperative evaluation of patients referred for CRT is unknown.

Purpose

To investigate if native T1 mapping and calculation of ECV can adequately detect scar in patients referred for CRT.

Methods

Scar was quantified as percentage segmental LGE in 45 patients (age 65 ± 10 years, 71% male, QRS-width 165 ± 17ms) referred for CRT. In total 720 segments were analyzed, and LGE≥50% was considered transmural scar. T1-mapping before and after contrast agent injection was performed in all patients. ECV was calculated based on the ratio between tissue T1 relaxation change and blood T1 relaxation change after contrast agent injection, corrected for the haematocrit level. The agreement between native T1/ECV and scar was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with calculation of area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

LGE was present in 255 segments, 465 segments were without LGE. Average native T1 in segments with LGE was 1028 ± 88 ms, and 1040 ± 60 ms in segments without LGE (p = 0.16). The corresponding numbers for ECV were 38.7 ± 10.9% and 30.0 ± 4.7%, p < 0.001. Native T1 showed poor agreement to scar independent of scar size (AUC = 0.532, 95% CI 0.485-0.578 for scars of all sizes, and AUC = 0.572, 95% CI 0.495-0.650 for transmural scars). ECV, on the other hand, showed reasonable agreement with scar of all sizes (AUC = 0.777, 95% CI 0.739-0.815), and good agreement with transmural scars (AUC = 0.856, 95% CI 0.811-0.902). (Figure)

Conclusion

The contrast-free CMR technique T1 mapping does not adequately detect scars in patients referred for CRT. Adding post contrast T1 measurements and calculating ECV improves accuracy, especially for transmural scars. Future studies should investigate if diffuse fibrosis could be predictive of CRT response.

Abstract P1585 Figure. Detection of transmural scars