Key result
Non-invasive PV loop metrics predict ~38% higher risk of major events post-STEMI, unlike LVEF.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether non-invasive CMR-derived pressure-volume loop variables are associated with all-cause mortality or heart failure compared to MAP, LVEF, and SV in revascularized STEMI patients.
Do non-invasive pressure-volume loop variables by CMR predict all-cause mortality or heart failure better than MAP, LVEF, and SV in patients with revascularized STEMI?
Do non-invasive pressure-volume loop variables by CMR predict all-cause mortality or heart failure better than MAP, LVEF, and SV in patients with revascularized STEMI?
Non-invasive pressure-volume loop variables derived from CMR provide incremental prognostic value over traditional measures like LVEF for predicting mortality and heart failure in post-STEMI patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Refines post-STEMI risk stratification beyond LVEF; extends non-invasive PV loop utility but remains hypothesis-generating.
Aims We aimed to investigate if non-invasive pressure-volume (PV) loop variables by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) are associated with all-cause mortality or heart failure compared to mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and stroke volume (SV) in patients with revascularized ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods A total of 653 STEMI-patients from the DANAMI-3 trial underwent CMR and brachial blood pressure registration after revascularization. Volumetric CMR-data and brachial blood pressure were used to generate PV loops and calculate arterial elastance, contractility, energy per ejected volume, external power, potential energy, stroke work, ventricular efficiency, and ventriculoarterial coupling. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for heart failure. Results A total of 39 patients met the primary outcome during a maximal follow-up time of 4.7 years. Potential energy (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02-1.88) and ventriculoarterial coupling (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.78) were associated with the primary outcome after adjustments for age, sex, and infarct size. LVEF (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.10), MAP (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80-1.58), and SV (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68-1.54) did, however, not show an association with the primary outcome. Conclusion Non-invasive pressure-volume loop variables are prognostic of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure independent of age, sex, and infarct size and may provide incremental prognostic information to left ventricular ejection fraction and infarct size for clinical outcome after myocardial infarction. Thus, non-invasive PV-loop variables could potentially be used for early treatment guidance in post-STEMI patients.
Lav et al. (2026) studied this question. Potential energy (HR 1.38) and ventriculoarterial coupling (HR 1.35) derived from non-invasive pressure-volume loops predicted mortality or heart failure in post-STEMI patients, unlike LVEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: