Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 May;36(5):921-928. doi: 10.1007/s10554-020-01785-w. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
The aim of this study was to assess the agreements of both biplane and short-axis Simpson's (SAX) methods for left atrial ejection fraction (LAEF) calculation utilising cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and evaluate their relation to clinical outcomes. One hundred and thirty six subjects (HFpEF n = 97, controls n = 39) underwent CMR, six-minute walk tests and blood sampling in our prospective, observational, single-centre study. Overall, LAEF (%) was lower in HFpEF patients compared to controls (SAX 34 ± 13 vs 47 ± 8, biplane 34 ± 16 vs 51 ± 11; p < 0.0001 for both). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was present in 24% of HFpEF and was associated with higher LA volumes and lower LAEF compared to sinus rhythm (p < 0.0001) with both methods. Biplane LAEF correlated strongly with SAX measurements (overall Pearson's r = 0.851, sinus rhythm r = 0.651, AF r = 0.882; p < 0.0001). Biplane LAEF did not differ significantly compared to SAX LAEF (overall 34 ± 16 vs 34 ± 13%; p = 0.307) except in AF subjects in whom biplane LAEF was lower (mean difference 2 ± 4%, p = 0.013). There were 44 composite events (25 deaths, 19 HF hospitalizations) in HFpEF during median follow-up of 1429 days. LAEF below the median was associated with increased risk of composite endpoints (Log-Rank biplane p < 0.0001; SAX p = 0.009). In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, both biplane LAEF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.604; 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.406-0.900); p = 0.013) and SAX LAEF (HR 0.636; CI 0.441-0.918; p = 0.016) remained independent predictors along with indexed extracellular volume. CMR LAEF, derived from either the short-axis or biplane method is lower in HFpEF compared to healthy controls and remains a strong marker of prognosis.
这项研究的目的是评估双平面 Simpson's(SAX)法和短轴 Simpson's(SAX)法在射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)患者左心房射血分数(LAEF)计算中的一致性,并评估它们与临床结局的关系。在我们前瞻性、观察性、单中心研究中,136 名受试者(HFpEF n=97,对照组 n=39)接受了心血管磁共振成像(CMR)、六分钟步行测试和血液采样。总体而言,HFpEF 患者的 LAEF(%)低于对照组(SAX 34±13 比 47±8,双平面 34±16 比 51±11;两者均 p<0.0001)。HFpEF 中 24%存在心房颤动(AF),与窦性心律相比,AF 患者的左房容积更大,LAEF 更低(p<0.0001),两种方法均如此。双平面 LAEF 与 SAX 测量值高度相关(总体 Pearson's r=0.851,窦性心律 r=0.651,AF r=0.882;p<0.0001)。双平面 LAEF 与 SAX LAEF 无显著差异(总体 34±16 比 34±13%;p=0.307),但在 AF 患者中,双平面 LAEF 较低(平均差异 2±4%,p=0.013)。HFpEF 患者在中位随访 1429 天期间发生 44 例复合终点事件(25 例死亡,19 例 HF 住院)。LAEF 低于中位数与复合终点风险增加相关(Log-Rank 双平面 p<0.0001;SAX p=0.009)。在多变量 Cox 比例风险回归分析中,双平面 LAEF(风险比 [HR] 0.604;95%置信区间 [CI](0.406-0.900);p=0.013)和 SAX LAEF(HR 0.636;CI 0.441-0.918;p=0.016)与指数化细胞外容积一起仍然是独立的预测因子。与健康对照组相比,HFpEF 患者的 CMR LAEF(无论是通过短轴还是双平面方法得出)均较低,并且仍然是预后的强有力标志物。