Myocardial stiffness assessed by shear wave imaging was significantly higher in HCM-HFpEF patients than healthy volunteers (12.68 vs 4.47 kPa; P<0.01), yielding an AUC of 0.993.
Observational (n=80)
Does noninvasive myocardial shear wave imaging accurately quantify diastolic myocardial stiffness in healthy adults and HCM-HFpEF patients?
Noninvasive myocardial shear wave imaging can accurately quantify diastolic myocardial stiffness, which increases with age and is significantly elevated in patients with HCM and HFpEF.
Absolute Event Rate: 12.68% vs 4.47%
p-value: p=<0.01
OBJECTIVES: The goal of our study was to investigate the potential of myocardial shear wave imaging (SWI) to quantify the diastolic myocardial stiffness (MS) (kPa) noninvasively in adult healthy volunteers (HVs) and its physiological variation with age, and in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) populations with heart failure and preserved ejection function (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: MS is an important prognostic and diagnostic parameter of the diastolic function. MS is affected by physiological changes but also by pathological alterations of extracellular and cellular tissues. However, the clinical assessment of MS and the diastolic function remains challenging. SWI is a novel ultrasound-based technique that has the potential to provide intrinsic MS noninvasively. METHODS: We prospectively included 80 adults: 60 HV (divided into 3 groups: 20- to 39-year old patients n = 20; 40- to 59-year-old patients n = 20; and 60- to 79-year-old patients n = 20) and 20 HCM-HFpEF patients. Echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and biological explorations were achieved. MS evaluation was performed using an ultrafast ultrasound scanner with cardiac phased array. The fractional anisotropy of MS was also estimated. RESULTS: MS increased significantly with age in the HV group (the mean MS was 2.59 ± 0.58 kPa, 4.70 ± 0.88 kPa, and 6.08 ± 1.06 kPa for the 20- to 40-year-old, 40- to 60-year-old, and 60- to 80-year-old patient groups, respectively; p < 0.01 between each group). MS was significantly higher in HCM-HFpEF patients than in HV patients (mean MS = 12.68 ± 2.91 kPa vs. 4.47 ± 1.68 kPa, respectively; p < 0.01), with a cut-off at 8 kPa (area under the curve = 0.993; sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 100%). The fractional anisotropy was lower in HCM-HFpEF (mean = 0.133 ± 0.073) than in HV (0.238 ± 0.068) (p < 0.01). Positive correlations were found between MS and diastolic parameters in echocardiography (early diastolic peak/early diastolic mitral annular velocity, r = 0.783; early diastolic peak/transmitral flow propagation velocity, r = 0.616; left atrial volume index, r = 0.623) and with fibrosis markers in cardiac magnetic resonance (late gadolinium enhancement, r = 0.804; myocardial T1 pre-contrast, r = 0.711). CONCLUSIONS: MS was found to increase with age in healthy adults and was significantly higher in HCM-HFpEF patients. Myocardial SWI has the potential to become a clinical tool for the diagnostic of diastolic dysfunction. (Non-invasive Evaluation of Myocardial Stiffness by Elastography Elasto-Cardio; NCT02537041).
Villemain et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with HFpEF (n=80). Myocardial shear wave imaging (SWI) vs. Healthy volunteers was evaluated on Myocardial stiffness (MS) (p=<0.01). Myocardial stiffness assessed by shear wave imaging was significantly higher in HCM-HFpEF patients than healthy volunteers (12.68 vs 4.47 kPa; P<0.01), yielding an AUC of 0.993.