Department of Cardiology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital/University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Department of Cardiology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital/University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Aug 1;124(3):325-333. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.05.007. Epub 2019 May 9.
The inter-relationships between minimal and maximal left atrial volume index (LAVI), left ventricular filling pressures and survival have not been well studied. This study aimed to compare LAVImin with LAVImax with respect to (1) relative prognostic value, and (2) correlation with left ventricular end-diastolic pressures (LVEDP), in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). A retrospective study involving consecutive patients with a first-ever MI (n = 419) was undertaken. LAVIs were determined using Simpson's biplane method from 2D echocardiography performed the day after admission. LAVmin ≥ 18 mls/m and LAVImax ≥ 34 mls/m were considered enlarged. The primary end point was composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death/MI/heart failure). Correlation between LVEDP and LAVI was assessed in 120 patients who underwent echocardiography and cardiac catheterization either simultaneously (n = 30) or same-day (n = 90). At a median follow-up of 24 months, there were 61 MACE events. On Cox proportional hazards multivariate analysis incorporating significant clinical predictors and LVEF, whereas both LAVImin ≥ 18 mls/m (hazard ratio 3.15 [95% confidence interval 1.70 to 5.54], p <0.001) and LAVImax ≥ 34 mls/m (hazard ratio 1.79 [95% confidence interval 1.02 to 3.14], p = 0.041) were independent predictors of MACE, LAVImin showed a stronger association. Intermodel comparisons of the model chi-square and Harrell's C-statistic confirmed better prognostication with LAVImin. In the invasive cohort, because LAVImin and LAVImax had a similar correlation with LVEDP ≥ 15 mm Hg (r = 0.41 [p <0.001] vs r = 0.42 [p <0.001]), LAVmin ≥ 18 mls/m had a greater sensitivity for LVEDP ≥ 15 mm Hg than LAVImax ≥ 34 mls/m (sensitivity 59.4% vs 34.4%). In conclusion, utilizing thresholds of ≥18 and ≥34 mls/m, respectively, LAVImin was a better predictor of survival than LAVImax, the pathophysiologic basis of which relates to a better sensitivity for elevated left ventricular filling pressures with LAVImin at these thresholds. There may be incremental clinical value in measuring LAVImin alongside LAVImax.
左心房最小和最大容积指数(LAVI)、左心室充盈压和生存之间的相互关系尚未得到很好的研究。本研究旨在比较 LAVImin 和 LAVImax 的(1)相对预后价值,以及(2)与心肌梗死(MI)患者的左心室舒张末期压(LVEDP)的相关性。进行了一项回顾性研究,纳入了首次 MI(n=419)的连续患者。LAVIs 使用 Simpson 的双平面法从入院后第二天的二维超声心动图确定。将 LAVmin≥18mls/m 和 LAVImax≥34mls/m 定义为增大。主要终点是复合主要不良心血管事件(MACE)(死亡/心肌梗死/心力衰竭)。在 120 名同时(n=30)或同一天(n=90)接受超声心动图和心导管检查的患者中评估了 LVEDP 和 LAVI 之间的相关性。中位随访 24 个月时,发生 61 例 MACE 事件。在 Cox 比例风险多变量分析中,纳入了有意义的临床预测因子和 LVEF,而 LAVImin≥18mls/m(危险比 3.15[95%置信区间 1.70 至 5.54],p<0.001)和 LAVImax≥34mls/m(危险比 1.79[95%置信区间 1.02 至 3.14],p=0.041)都是 MACE 的独立预测因子,LAVImin 与 MACE 的相关性更强。模型卡方和 Harrell 的 C 统计量的模型间比较证实,LAVImin 具有更好的预后预测能力。在侵袭性队列中,因为 LAVImin 和 LAVImax 与 LVEDP≥15mmHg(r=0.41[p<0.001]与 r=0.42[p<0.001])有类似的相关性,所以 LAVmin≥18mls/m 对 LVEDP≥15mmHg 的敏感性高于 LAVImax≥34mls/m(敏感性 59.4%比 34.4%)。总之,使用≥18 和≥34mls/m 的阈值,LAVImin 是比 LAVImax 更好的生存预测因子,其病理生理基础与在这些阈值下对升高的左心室充盈压具有更好的敏感性有关。在测量 LAVImin 时,可能会增加临床价值。