Left Ventricular End-Systolic Volume Is a Reliable Predictor of New-Onset Heart Failure with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Marina Kato, Shuichi Kitada, Yu Kawada, Kosuke Nakasuka, Shohei Kikuchi, Yoshihiro Seo, Nobuyuki Ohte
Author Information
  1. Marina Kato: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan.
  2. Shuichi Kitada: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan. ORCID
  3. Yu Kawada: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan.
  4. Kosuke Nakasuka: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan. ORCID
  5. Shohei Kikuchi: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan.
  6. Yoshihiro Seo: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan.
  7. Nobuyuki Ohte: Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV volumes were reported to have prognostic efficacy in cardiac diseases. In particular, the end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) has been featured as the most reliable prognostic indicator. However, such efficacy in patients with LVEF ≥ 50% has not been elucidated.
METHODS: We screened the patients who received cardiac catheterization to evaluate coronary artery disease concomitantly with both left ventriculography and LV pressure recording using a catheter-tipped micromanometer and finally enrolled 355 patients with LVEF ≥ 50% and no history of heart failure (HF) after exclusion of the patients with severe coronary artery stenosis requiring early revascularization. Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was defined as adverse events. The prognostic value of LVESVI was investigated using a Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: A univariable analysis demonstrated that age, log BNP level, tau, peak - d/d, LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and LVESVI were associated with adverse events. A correlation analysis revealed that LVESVI was significantly associated with log BNP level ( = 0.356, < 0.001), +d/d ( = -0.324, < 0.001), -d/d ( = 0.391, < 0.001), and tau ( = 0.337, < 0.001). Multivariable analysis with a stepwise procedure using the variables with statistical significance in the univariable analysis revealed that aging, an increase in BNP level, and enlargement of LVESVI were significant prognostic indicators (age: HR: 1.071, 95% CI: 1.009-1.137, =0.024; log BNP : HR : 1.533, 95% CI: 1.090-2.156, =0.014; LVESVI : HR : 1.051, 95% CI: 1.011-1.093, =0.013, respectively). According to the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for adverse events, log BNP level of 3.23 pg/ml (BNP level: 25.3 pg/ml) and an LVESVI of 24.1 ml/m were optimal cutoff values (BNP : AUC : 0.753, < 0.001, LVESVI : AUC : 0.729, < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: In patients with LVEF ≥ 50%, an increased LVESVI is related to the adverse events. LV contractile performance even in the range of preserved LVEF should be considered as a role of a prognostic indicator.

References

  1. N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370(15):1383-92 [PMID: 24716680]
  2. Circulation. 2013 Jan 1;127(1):55-62 [PMID: 23172838]
  3. Circ Res. 1989 May;64(5):827-52 [PMID: 2523260]
  4. Circulation. 1993 Mar;87(3):755-63 [PMID: 8443896]
  5. Circ Res. 1992 Jan;70(1):9-19 [PMID: 1345778]
  6. Heart Vessels. 2016 May;31(5):734-43 [PMID: 25771802]
  7. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Jul;25(7):766-72 [PMID: 22609096]
  8. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Sep 1;80(5):595-600 [PMID: 9294988]
  9. Circulation. 2008 May 20;117(20):2608-16 [PMID: 18458170]
  10. Circ Heart Fail. 2015 Jan;8(1):41-8 [PMID: 25342738]
  11. Circulation. 1997 Jul 1;96(1):116-21 [PMID: 9236425]
  12. Am J Med. 1980 May;68(5):655-63 [PMID: 7377221]
  13. Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200 [PMID: 27206819]
  14. Eur Heart J. 2009 Oct;30(20):2478-84 [PMID: 19578167]
  15. Int J Cardiol. 2006 Apr 4;108(2):181-8 [PMID: 15922464]
  16. J Clin Invest. 1976 Sep;58(3):751-60 [PMID: 956400]
  17. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jan;14(1):69-76 [PMID: 22848021]
  18. Circulation. 1991 Sep;84(3 Suppl):I167-76 [PMID: 1884482]
  19. Circulation. 1958 Dec;18(6):1105-17 [PMID: 13608839]
  20. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009 Feb;22(2):190-7 [PMID: 19084372]
  21. Circulation. 2015 Aug 4;132(5):402-14 [PMID: 26130119]
  22. Eur Heart J. 2007 Oct;28(20):2421-3 [PMID: 17890729]
  23. Br Heart J. 1979 Sep;42(3):311-5 [PMID: 508453]
  24. Circulation. 2017 Aug 8;136(6):e137-e161 [PMID: 28455343]
  25. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Sep 5;48(5):983-91 [PMID: 16949491]
  26. Circ Heart Fail. 2010 Sep;3(5):588-95 [PMID: 20543134]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0LVESVI<0001LVprognosticpatientsanalysisadverseeventsBNPlevel1LeftLVEF ≥ 50%using = 095%CI:=0efficacycardiacvolumeindexindicatorcoronaryarteryHFunivariablelogtauLVEFassociatedrevealedrespectivelyVentricularBACKGROUND:ventricularejectionfractionEFvolumesreporteddiseasesparticularend-systolicfeaturedreliableHoweverelucidatedMETHODS:screenedreceivedcatheterizationevaluatediseaseconcomitantlyleftventriculographypressurerecordingcatheter-tippedmicromanometerfinallyenrolled355historyheartfailureexclusionseverestenosisrequiringearlyrevascularizationCardiovasculardeathhospitalizationdefinedvalueinvestigatedCoxproportionalhazardsmodelRESULTS:demonstratedagepeak - d/dend-diastolicLVEDVIcorrelationsignificantly356+d/d = -0324-d/d391337Multivariablestepwiseprocedurevariablesstatisticalsignificanceagingincreaseenlargementsignificantindicatorsage:HR:071009-1137024log BNP : HR : 1533090-2156014LVESVI : HR : 1051011-1093013Accordingreceiver-operatingcharacteristiccurvelog BNP323 pg/mllevel:253 pg/ml241 ml/moptimalcutoffvaluesBNP : AUC : 0753LVESVI : AUC : 0729CONCLUSION:increasedrelatedcontractileperformanceevenrangepreservedconsideredroleEnd-SystolicVolumeReliablePredictorNew-OnsetHeartFailurePreservedEjectionFraction

Similar Articles

Cited By