Key result
Non-invasive assessment shows myocardial work is ~2x higher in AS and lower in HCM versus controls.
Why the study?
Existing non-invasive myocardial work assessment relies on assumptions of LV pressure and geometry; this study tested the feasibility of calculating myocardial stress and work from shear wave elastography stiffness and strain measurements.
Does non-invasive assessment of myocardial work using stiffness and strain differentiate between pediatric patients with HCM, AS, and healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=45)
Does non-invasive assessment of myocardial work using stiffness and strain differentiate between pediatric patients with HCM, AS, and healthy volunteers?
A novel non-invasive ultrasound approach using shear wave elastography to calculate myocardial work is feasible and can differentiate between pediatric patients with HCM, AS, and healthy volunteers.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May differentiate myocardial work non-invasively in pediatric AS and HCM; leaves open validation for risk stratification or management.
AIMS: Myocardial work assessment has emerged as a promising tool for left ventricular (LV) performance evaluation. Existing non-invasive methods for assessing it rely on assumptions on LV pressure and geometry. Recently, shear wave elastography allowed to quantify changes in myocardial stiffness throughout the cardiac cycle. Based on Hooke's law, it becomes theoretically possible to calculate myocardial stress and work from myocardial stiffness and strain measurements. The main objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of this comprehensive ultrasound approach and to compare myocardial work values between populations where variations are anticipated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), aortic stenosis (AS) and healthy volunteers (HV) were included in this study. Segment dimensions, strain, thickness, and segmental myocardial stiffness were assessed in the basal antero-septal segment throughout the cardiac cycle. One-beat segmental work, the stress-strain loop area, and contributive and dissipative work were compared between groups. Twenty HV (9.8 ± 5.3 years of age), 20 HCM (10.0 ± 6.1 years of age), and 5 AS (5.3 ± 4.3 years of age) subjects were included. One-beat segmental work was significantly higher in AS (272.0 ± 102.9 µJ/mm) and lower in HCM (38.2 ± 106.9 µJ/mm) compared with HV (131.1 ± 83.3 µJ/mm), P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively. Desynchronized work was prevailing in HCM with dissipative work during systole measured at 17.3 ± 28.9 µJ/mm and contributive work during diastole measured at 15.3 ± 18.0 µJ/mm. The stress-strain loop area was higher in AS (95.2 ± 31.1 kPa%) and HV (66.2 ± 35.9 kPa%) than in HCM (5.8 ± 13.0 kPa%), P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: Calculating segmental myocardial work based on myocardial stiffness and strain measurements is technically feasible. This approach overcomes the inherent limitations of current methods by introducing a direct quantitative measure of myocardial stress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Venet et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and aortic stenosis (n=45). Non-invasive assessment of myocardial work using myocardial stiffness and strain vs. Healthy volunteers was evaluated on One-beat segmental work (p=0.02 and 0.01). Non-invasive assessment of myocardial work using stiffness and strain showed higher work in aortic stenosis (272.0 µJ/mm) and lower in HCM (38.2 µJ/mm) vs healthy volunteers (131.1 µJ/mm).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: