Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Cardiology Department, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Heart. 2021 Jun;107(11):902-908. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318557. Epub 2021 Mar 10.
To improve the echocardiographic assessment of heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by comparing conventional averaging of consecutive beats with an index-beat approach, whereby measurements are taken after two cycles with similar R-R interval.
Transthoracic echocardiography was performed using a standardised and blinded protocol in patients enrolled in the RATE-AF (RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation) randomised trial. We compared reproducibility of the index-beat and conventional consecutive-beat methods to calculate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS) and E/e' (mitral E wave max/average diastolic tissue Doppler velocity), and assessed intraoperator/interoperator variability, time efficiency and validity against natriuretic peptides.
160 patients were included, 46% of whom were women, with a median age of 75 years (IQR 69-82) and a median heart rate of 100 beats per minute (IQR 86-112). The index-beat had the lowest within-beat coefficient of variation for LVEF (32%, vs 51% for 5 consecutive beats and 53% for 10 consecutive beats), GLS (26%, vs 43% and 42%) and E/e' (25%, vs 41% and 41%). Intraoperator (n=50) and interoperator (n=18) reproducibility were both superior for index-beats and this method was quicker to perform (p<0.001): 35.4 s to measure E/e' (95% CI 33.1 to 37.8) compared with 44.7 s for 5-beat (95% CI 41.8 to 47.5) and 98.1 s for 10-beat (95% CI 91.7 to 104.4) analyses. Using a single index-beat did not compromise the association of LVEF, GLS or E/e' with natriuretic peptide levels.
Compared with averaging of multiple beats in patients with AF, the index-beat approach improves reproducibility and saves time without a negative impact on validity, potentially improving the diagnosis and classification of heart failure in patients with AF.
通过比较传统的连续心跳平均法和指数心跳法,改善心房颤动(AF)患者心力衰竭的超声心动图评估。指数心跳法是指在两次相似 R-R 间期后测量,从而获取测量值。
采用标准化、盲法方案,对 RATE-AF(永久性心房颤动的速率控制治疗评估)随机试验中纳入的患者进行经胸超声心动图检查。我们比较了指数心跳法和传统连续心跳法测量左心室射血分数(LVEF)、整体纵向应变(GLS)和 E/e'(二尖瓣 E 波最大/平均舒张组织多普勒速度)的重复性,并评估了操作者内/操作者间变异性、时间效率以及与利钠肽的有效性。
共纳入 160 例患者,其中 46%为女性,中位年龄为 75 岁(IQR 69-82),中位心率为 100 次/分钟(IQR 86-112)。指数心跳法测量 LVEF、GLS 和 E/e'的组内变异系数最低(分别为 32%、26%和 25%),而 5 次连续心跳法分别为 51%、43%和 41%,10 次连续心跳法分别为 53%、42%和 41%。指数心跳法的操作者内(n=50)和操作者间(n=18)重复性均优于连续心跳法,且该方法耗时更短(p<0.001):测量 E/e'需要 35.4 秒(95%CI 33.1 秒至 37.8 秒),而 5 次连续心跳法需要 44.7 秒(95%CI 41.8 秒至 47.5 秒),10 次连续心跳法需要 98.1 秒(95%CI 91.7 秒至 104.4 秒)。使用单个指数心跳法并不影响 LVEF、GLS 或 E/e'与利钠肽水平的相关性。
与在 AF 患者中使用多心跳平均法相比,指数心跳法提高了重复性并节省了时间,而不会对有效性产生负面影响,从而可能改善 AF 患者心力衰竭的诊断和分类。