Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Dec 2020)

Layer-specific strain in patients with heart failure using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: not all layers are the same

  • Lingyu Xu,
  • Joseph J. Pagano,
  • Mark J. Haykowksy,
  • Justin A. Ezekowitz,
  • Gavin Y. Oudit,
  • Yoko Mikami,
  • Andrew Howarth,
  • James A. White,
  • Jason R. B. Dyck,
  • Todd Anderson,
  • D. Ian Paterson,
  • Richard B. Thompson,
  • for the AB HEART Investigators

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00680-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 16

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Global longitudinal strain (GLS), most commonly measured at the endocardium, has been shown to be superior to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) for the identification of systolic dysfunction and prediction of outcomes in heart failure (HF). We hypothesized that strains measured at different myocardial layers (endocardium = ENDO, epicardium = EPI, average = AVE) will have distinct diagnostic and predictive performance for patients with HF. Methods Layer-specific GLS, layer-specific global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) were evaluated by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) feature tracking in the Alberta HEART study. A total of 453 subjects consisted of healthy controls (controls, n = 77), at-risk for HF (at-risk, n = 143), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n = 87), HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF, n = 88) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 58). For outcomes analysis, CMR-derived imaging parameters were adjusted with a base model that included age and N-terminal prohormone of b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to test their independent association with 5-year all-cause mortality. Results GLS_EPI distinguished all groups with preserved LVEF (controls − 16.5 ± 2.4% vs. at-risk − 15.5 ± 2.7% vs. HFpEF − 14.1 ± 3.0%, p 55%), in whom lower strains were associated with increased concentricity.

Keywords