Aly Saad, Mohammad Abdelhady, Loai Ali AbdulHadi Attia, Ahmed Shawky Shereef, Islam Elsayed Shehata
{"title":"揭示心衰亚型右心室劳损的预后潜力","authors":"Aly Saad, Mohammad Abdelhady, Loai Ali AbdulHadi Attia, Ahmed Shawky Shereef, Islam Elsayed Shehata","doi":"10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_100_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Right ventricle (RV) function is a recognized independent determinant of morbidity and mortality in heart failure (HF), encompassing various etiologies such as congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The prognostic significance of RV dysfunction in different HF subtypes - HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and reduced EF (HFrEF) - continues to gain attention. This study aimed to assess RV dysfunction, quantified by global longitudinal strain (RV GLS), as an early and sensitive predictor of outcomes in HF patients categorized by EF.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospective study of 100 HF patients categorized into HFpEF (left ventricular EF [LVEF] >50%, <i>n</i> = 16), HFmrEF (LVEF 40%-50%, <i>n</i> = 47), and HFrEF (LVEF < 40%, <i>n</i> = 37). Echocardiographic assessments, including RV GLS, were performed using a standardized protocol on the Philips EPIC 7C system. RV GLS was analyzed as a sensitive marker for poor outcomes, defined by major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and worsening functional status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RV GLS demonstrated significant variation among the groups. Patients in Group C (HFrEF, LVEF < 40%) exhibited markedly lower RV GLS compared to Group A (HFpEF, LVEF > 50%) (-13.5 ± 5.24 vs. -16.8 ± 4.21; <i>P</i> = 0.006). In addition, a significant difference was noted between Group C and Group B (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-50%) (-13.5 ± 5.24 vs. -14.6 ± 4.15; <i>P</i> = 0.047). The predictive value of RV GLS for poor outcomes in HF patients was supported by a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 69.12%, with a cutoff threshold of - 14.7%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RV GLS serves as a dependable marker for predicting poor outcomes in HF patients, with a defined cutoff value of -14.7%. This metric holds substantial clinical promise for effective risk stratification and timely intervention, demonstrating a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 69.12%.</p>","PeriodicalId":15191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Echography","volume":"35 2","pages":"121-128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unlocking the Prognostic Potential of Right Ventricular Strain in Heart Failure Subtypes.\",\"authors\":\"Aly Saad, Mohammad Abdelhady, Loai Ali AbdulHadi Attia, Ahmed Shawky Shereef, Islam Elsayed Shehata\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_100_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Right ventricle (RV) function is a recognized independent determinant of morbidity and mortality in heart failure (HF), encompassing various etiologies such as congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The prognostic significance of RV dysfunction in different HF subtypes - HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and reduced EF (HFrEF) - continues to gain attention. This study aimed to assess RV dysfunction, quantified by global longitudinal strain (RV GLS), as an early and sensitive predictor of outcomes in HF patients categorized by EF.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospective study of 100 HF patients categorized into HFpEF (left ventricular EF [LVEF] >50%, <i>n</i> = 16), HFmrEF (LVEF 40%-50%, <i>n</i> = 47), and HFrEF (LVEF < 40%, <i>n</i> = 37). Echocardiographic assessments, including RV GLS, were performed using a standardized protocol on the Philips EPIC 7C system. RV GLS was analyzed as a sensitive marker for poor outcomes, defined by major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and worsening functional status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RV GLS demonstrated significant variation among the groups. Patients in Group C (HFrEF, LVEF < 40%) exhibited markedly lower RV GLS compared to Group A (HFpEF, LVEF > 50%) (-13.5 ± 5.24 vs. -16.8 ± 4.21; <i>P</i> = 0.006). In addition, a significant difference was noted between Group C and Group B (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-50%) (-13.5 ± 5.24 vs. -14.6 ± 4.15; <i>P</i> = 0.047). The predictive value of RV GLS for poor outcomes in HF patients was supported by a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 69.12%, with a cutoff threshold of - 14.7%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RV GLS serves as a dependable marker for predicting poor outcomes in HF patients, with a defined cutoff value of -14.7%. This metric holds substantial clinical promise for effective risk stratification and timely intervention, demonstrating a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 69.12%.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Echography\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"121-128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425253/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Echography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_100_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Echography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_100_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:右心室(RV)功能是公认的心衰(HF)发病率和死亡率的独立决定因素,包括各种病因,如先天性心脏病、肺动脉高压和冠状动脉疾病。不同HF亚型——保留射血分数(HFpEF)、中程EF (HFmrEF)和降低EF (HFrEF)的HF, RV功能障碍的预后意义继续受到关注。本研究旨在评估全纵应变(RV GLS)量化的右心室功能障碍,作为EF分类的HF患者预后的早期和敏感预测指标。材料与方法:前瞻性研究100例HF患者,分为HFpEF(左室EF [LVEF] 50%, n = 16)、HFmrEF (LVEF 40% ~ 50%, n = 47)、HFrEF (LVEF < 40%, n = 37)。超声心动图评估,包括RV GLS,在飞利浦EPIC 7C系统上使用标准化协议进行。RV GLS被分析为不良预后的敏感标志物,主要由心脏不良事件(MACE)和功能状态恶化定义。结果:RV GLS组间差异显著。C组患者(HFrEF, LVEF < 40%)的RV GLS明显低于A组(HFpEF, LVEF < 50%)(-13.5±5.24 vs -16.8±4.21;P = 0.006)。此外,C组与B组(HFmrEF, LVEF 40-50%)差异有统计学意义(-13.5±5.24 vs -14.6±4.15;P = 0.047)。RV GLS对HF患者不良预后的预测价值的敏感性为75%,特异性为69.12%,截止阈值为- 14.7%。结论:RV GLS可作为预测心衰患者不良预后的可靠指标,临界值为-14.7%。该指标对有效的风险分层和及时干预具有重要的临床应用前景,其敏感性为75%,特异性为69.12%。
Unlocking the Prognostic Potential of Right Ventricular Strain in Heart Failure Subtypes.
Objectives: Right ventricle (RV) function is a recognized independent determinant of morbidity and mortality in heart failure (HF), encompassing various etiologies such as congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The prognostic significance of RV dysfunction in different HF subtypes - HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and reduced EF (HFrEF) - continues to gain attention. This study aimed to assess RV dysfunction, quantified by global longitudinal strain (RV GLS), as an early and sensitive predictor of outcomes in HF patients categorized by EF.
Materials and methods: A prospective study of 100 HF patients categorized into HFpEF (left ventricular EF [LVEF] >50%, n = 16), HFmrEF (LVEF 40%-50%, n = 47), and HFrEF (LVEF < 40%, n = 37). Echocardiographic assessments, including RV GLS, were performed using a standardized protocol on the Philips EPIC 7C system. RV GLS was analyzed as a sensitive marker for poor outcomes, defined by major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and worsening functional status.
Results: RV GLS demonstrated significant variation among the groups. Patients in Group C (HFrEF, LVEF < 40%) exhibited markedly lower RV GLS compared to Group A (HFpEF, LVEF > 50%) (-13.5 ± 5.24 vs. -16.8 ± 4.21; P = 0.006). In addition, a significant difference was noted between Group C and Group B (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-50%) (-13.5 ± 5.24 vs. -14.6 ± 4.15; P = 0.047). The predictive value of RV GLS for poor outcomes in HF patients was supported by a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 69.12%, with a cutoff threshold of - 14.7%.
Conclusions: RV GLS serves as a dependable marker for predicting poor outcomes in HF patients, with a defined cutoff value of -14.7%. This metric holds substantial clinical promise for effective risk stratification and timely intervention, demonstrating a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 69.12%.