RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the primary variable utilized for prognosis following myocardial infarction (MI), it is relatively indiscriminate for survival in patients with mildly reduced (> 40%) or preserved LVEF (> 50%). Improving risk stratification in patients with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF remains an unmet need, and could be achieved by using a combination approach using prognostically validated measures of left-ventricular (LV) size, geometry, and function. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic utility of a Combined Echo-Score for predicting all-cause (ACM) and cardiac mortality (CM) following MI to LVEF alone, including the sub-groups with LVEF > 40% and LVEF > 50%. METHODS: Retrospective data on 3094 consecutive patients with MI from 2013 to 2021 who had inpatient echocardiography were included, including both patients with ST-elevation MI (n = 869 [28.1%]) and non-ST-elevation MI (n = 2225 [71.9%]). Echo-Score consisted of LVEF < 40% (2 points) or LVEF < 50% (1 point), and 1 point each for left atrial volume index > 34 mL/m2, septal E/e' > 15, abnormal LV mass-index, tricuspid regurgitation velocity > 2.8 m/s, and abnormal LV end-systolic volume-index. Simple addition was used to derive a score out of 7. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 4.5 years there were 445 deaths (130 cardiac deaths). On Cox proportional-hazards multivariable analysis incorporating significant clinical and echocardiographic predictors, Echo-Score was an independent predictor of both ACM (HR 1.34, p < .001) and CM (HR 1.59, p < .001). Inter-model comparisons of model ð2, Harrel's C and Somer's D, and Receiver operating curves confirmed the superior prognostic value of Echo-Score for both endpoints compared to LVEF. In the subgroups with LVEF > 40% and LVEF > 50%, Echo-Score was similarly superior to LVEF for predicting ACM and CM. CONCLUSIONS: An Echo-Score composed of prognostically validated LV parameters is superior to LVEF alone for predicting survival in patients with MI, including the subgroups with mildly reduced and preserved LVEF. This could lead to improved patient risk stratification, better-targeted therapies, and potentially more efficient use of device therapies. Further studies should be considered to define the benefit of further investigation and treatment in high-risk subgroups.
Asunto(s)
Ecocardiografía , Ventrículos Cardíacos , Infarto del Miocardio , Volumen Sistólico , Función Ventricular Izquierda , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Ecocardiografía/métodos , Ventrículos Cardíacos/diagnóstico por imagen , Ventrículos Cardíacos/fisiopatología , Infarto del Miocardio/fisiopatología , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico por imagen , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pronóstico , Función Ventricular Izquierda/fisiología , Anciano , Volumen Sistólico/fisiología , Tasa de Supervivencia , Valor Predictivo de las PruebasRESUMEN
AIMS: The availability of a true 3D dataset provides an opportunity for automation of left ventricular (LV) and left atrial (LA) measurements. Although manual and automated measurements of 3D volumes are known to correlate, the variance is an important parameter for the individual patient. The reasons for discrepancies remain unexplained. We hence aim to explain the disagreement between automated and manual LV and LA volumes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 355 patients underwent standard clinical echo, with offline analysis in both fully- (Heart Model, Philips) and semiautomated (3DQ-Adv, Philips) assessment of routine indices of LV and LA function and shape. Each image was classified according to quality using a 4-point scale as well as the American Society for Echocardiography guidelines for appropriate use of contrast. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement, and t tests were used to assess differences in agreement. Predictors of volume discrepancy were sought with linear regression. Measures of LV and LA volumes were greater with automatic than semiautomatic assessment. The difference in left ventricular end-diastolic volume was dependent on the number of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) (ß = 0.59, P < .04) and image quality (ß = 19.71, P = .02). RWMA predicted the difference in left ventricular end-systolic volume (ß = 0.83, P < .01) and left atrial end-systolic volume (ß = -1.01 P < .01). CONCLUSION: LV and LA volumes were higher with automatic than semiautomatic assessment. Image quality and RWMA may contribute to this discrepancy. These limitations need to be addressed before fully automatic assessment of 3D echocardiograms can be used in the clinic.