Why the study?
In view of cardiac remodeling, the authors hypothesized that 3DE-determined myocardial contraction fraction would be superior to LVEF in predicting functional capacity in HFrEF patients.
Does 3DE-determined myocardial contraction fraction better predict functional capacity and quality of life compared to LVEF in patients with HFrEF?
Does 3DE-determined myocardial contraction fraction better predict functional capacity and quality of life compared to LVEF in patients with HFrEF?
Myocardial contraction fraction derived from 3D echocardiography is a superior volumetric index compared to LVEF for predicting functional capacity and quality of life in HFrEF patients.
MCF may relate to functional capacity in HFrEF; leaves open its added value over LVEF for risk stratification.
Objectives: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE)-determined myocardial contraction fraction (MCF) and functional capacity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. The MCF is a volumetric index of myocardial function, defined as stroke volume ratio to myocardial volume (MV). Functional capacity was evaluated by a 6-min walk test (6MWT), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). In view of cardiac remodeling, we hypothesized that MCF would be superior to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in predicting functional capacity in HFrEF patients. Methods: The study was conducted on thirty HFrEF patients with an LVEF of no more than 40% with NYHA functional class I-III. Each patient performed, on the same day, the MLHFQ, 6MWT (to calculate the 6-min walk distance "6MWD"), and an ECG gated echocardiographic study including 3DE-determined MCF. MV was calculated as 3DE determined LV mass divided by the specific gravity of the myocardium. Results: Our results showed that MCF is inversely correlated with the Minnesota score (r 0.6, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with 6MWD (r 0.65, p < 0.001). However, no significant relationship existed between LVEF and MLHFQ score or 6MWD. In a multivariate model, MCF was shown to be an independent echocardiographic predictor (besides pulmonary artery systolic pressure) of 6MWD; however, LVEF failed to offer such potential. Conclusion: Among various echocardiographic parameters, MCF can be considered a volumetric index superior to LVEF in predicting functional capacity in HFrEF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdellatif et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: