Key result
Stage B heart failure patients had significantly prolonged cardiac electromechanical coupling time courses, such as Qsb, compared to healthy controls (119.19 ms vs 80.30 ms), showing higher sensitivity than LVEF.
Why the study?
Does cardiac electromechanical coupling time measured by TDI and ECG improve the evaluation of cardiac systolic function compared to LVEF in patients with Stage B heart failure?
Case-Control (n=57)
No
Does cardiac electromechanical coupling time measured by TDI and ECG improve the evaluation of cardiac systolic function compared to LVEF in patients with Stage B heart failure?
Cardiac electromechanical coupling time measured by TDI and ECG is a more sensitive index than LVEF for evaluating early systolic dysfunction in Stage B heart failure.
May aid early systolic assessment in Stage B heart failure; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Pressure overload-induced myocardial hypertrophy is a key step leading to heart failure. Previous cellular and animal studies demonstrated that deteriorated excitation-contraction coupling occurs as early as the compensated stage of hypertrophy before the global decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study was to evaluate the cardiac electromechanical coupling time in evaluating cardiac systolic function in the early stage of heart failure. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with Stage B heart failure (SBHF) and 31 healthy controls (CONs) were enrolled in this study. M-mode echocardiography was performed to measure LVEF. Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) combined with electrocardiography (ECG) was used to measure cardiac electromechanical coupling time. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in LVEF between SBHF patients and CONs (64.23 ± 8.91% vs. 64.52 ± 5.90%; P = 0.886). However, all four electromechanical coupling time courses (Qsb: onset of Q wave on ECG to beginning of S wave on TDI, Qst: onset of Q wave on ECG to top of S wave on TDI, Rsb: top of R wave on ECG to beginning of S wave on TDI, and Rst: top of R wave on ECG to top of S wave on TDI) of SBHF patients were significantly longer than those of CONs (Qsb: 119.19 ± 35.68 ms vs. 80.30 ± 14.81 ms, P < 0.001; Qst: 165.42 ± 60.93 ms vs. 129.04 ± 16.97 ms, P = 0.006; Rsb: 82.43 ± 33.66 ms vs. 48.30 ± 15.18 ms, P < 0.001; and Rst: 122.37 ± 36.66 ms vs. 93.25 ± 16.72 ms, P = 0.001), and the Qsb, Rsb, and Rst time showed a significantly higher sensitivity than LVEF (Rst: P =0.032; Rsb: P = 0.003; and Qsb: P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The cardiac electromechanical coupling time is more sensitive than LVEF in evaluating cardiac systolic function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2018) conducted a case-control in Stage B heart failure (n=57). Stage B heart failure vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Qsb time (onset of Q wave on ECG to beginning of S wave on TDI) (p=<0.001). Stage B heart failure patients had significantly prolonged cardiac electromechanical coupling time courses, such as Qsb, compared to healthy controls (119.19 ms vs 80.30 ms), showing higher sensitivity than LVEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: