Guidelines, Position Statements, and Standardizations: Documents to Assist Medical Practice

Left ventricular and atrial myocardial strain in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the evidence so far and prospects for phenotyping strategy

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a significant proportion of heart failure cases. Accurate diagnosis is challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease and limitations in traditional echocardiographic parameters.

MAIN BODY

This review appraises the application of Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS) and Left Atrial Strain (LAS) as echocardiographic biomarkers in the diagnosis and phenotyping of HFpEF. Strain imaging, particularly Speckle Tracking Echocardiography, offers a superior assessment of myocardial deformation, providing a more detailed insight into left heart function than traditional metrics. Normal ranges for GLS and LAS are considered, acknowledging the impact of demographic and technical factors on these values. Clinical studies have demonstrated the prognostic value of GLS and LAS in HFpEF, especially in predicting cardiovascular outcomes and distinguishing HFpEF from other causes of dyspnea. Nevertheless, the variability of strain measurements and the potential for false-negative results underline the need for careful clinical interpretation. The HFA-PEFF scoring system's integration of these biomarkers, although systematic, reveals gaps in addressing the full spectrum of HFpEF pathology. The combined use of GLS and LAS has been suggested to define HFpEF phenogroups, which could lead to more personalized treatment plans.

CONCLUSION

GLS and LAS have emerged as pivotal tools in the non-invasive diagnosis and stratification of HFpEF, offering a promise for tailored therapeutic strategies. Despite their potential, a structured approach to incorporating these biomarkers into standard diagnostic workflows is essential. Future clinical guidelines should include clear directives for the combined utilization of GLS and LAS, accentuating their role in the multidimensional assessment of HFpEF.

Position Statement on the Use of Myocardial Strain in Cardiology Routines by the Brazilian Society of Cardiology's Department Of Cardiovascular Imaging - 2023

Central Illustration : Position Statement on the Use of Myocardial Strain in Cardiology Routines by the Brazilian Society of Cardiology's Department Of Cardiovascular Imaging - 2023 Proposal for including strain in the integrated diastolic function assessment algorithm, adapted from Nagueh et al.67 Am: mitral A-wave duration; Ap: reverse pulmonary A-wave duration; DD: diastolic dysfunction; LA: left atrium; LASr: LA strain reserve; LVGLS: left ventricular global longitudinal strain; TI: tricuspid insufficiency. Confirm concentric remodeling with LVGLS. In LVEF, mitral E wave deceleration time < 160 ms and pulmonary S-wave < D-wave are also parameters of increased filling pressure. This algorithm does not apply to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), mitral annulus calcification, > mild mitral valve disease, left bundle branch block, paced rhythm, prosthetic valves, or severe primary pulmonary hypertension.

Mechanical dispersion is a superior echocardiographic feature to predict exercise capacity in preclinical and overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) is a syndrome characterized by different degrees of exercise intolerance, which leads to poor quality of life and prognosis. Recently, the European score (HFA-PEFF) was proposed to standardize the diagnosis of HFpEF. Even though Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS) is a component of HFA-PEFF, the role of other strain parameters, such as Mechanical Dispersion (MD), has yet to be studied. In this study, we aimed to compare MD and other features from the HFA-PEFF according to their association with exercise capacity in an outpatient population of subjects at risk or suspected HFpEF.

METHODS

This is a single-center cross-sectional study performed in an outpatient population of 144 subjects with a median age of 57 years, 58% females, referred to the Echocardiography and Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test to investigate HFpEF.

RESULTS

MD had a higher correlation to Peak VO2 (r=-0.43) when compared to GLS (r=-0.26), MD presented a significant correlation to Ventilatory Anaerobic Threshold (VAT) (r=-0.20; p = 0.04), while GLS showed no correlation (r=-0.14; p = 0.15). Neither MD nor GLS showed a correlation with the time to recover VO2 after exercise (T1/2). In Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis, MD presented superior performance to GLS to predict Peak VO2 (AUC: 0.77 vs. 0.62), VAT (AUC: 0.61 vs. 0.57), and T1/2 (AUC: 0.64 vs. 0.57). Adding MD to HFA-PEFF improved the model performance (AUC from 0.77 to 0.81).

CONCLUSION

MD presented a higher association with Peak VO2 when compared to GLS and most features from the HFA-PEFF. Adding MD to the HFA-PEFF improved the model performance.

Afterload increase challenge unmasks systolic abnormalities in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Provocative maneuvers have the potential to overcome the low sensitivity of resting echocardiography and biomarkers in the detection of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We investigate the mechanical response of the left ventricle to an afterload challenge in patients with preclinical and early-stage HFpEF (es-HFpEF).

METHODS

Three groups of patients (non-HFpEF - n = 42, pre-HFpEF - n = 43, and es-HFpEF - n = 39) underwent echocardiography at rest and during an afterload challenge induced by handgrip maneuver combined with pneumatic constriction of limbs.

RESULTS

Patients in the non-HF group displayed a median ΔLPSS = -4% (IQR: -10%, +2%), LPSS rest<16% in 3/42(7%) and LPSS stress<16% in 6/43(14%). Subjects in the pre-HFpEF group displayed median ΔLPSS = -3% (IQR: -10%, +5%) LPSS rest<16% in 13/43(30%) and LPSS stress<16% in 19/43 (44%). 11/43 (25%) subjects in this group increased at least one absolute point in LPSS during stress. Patients in es-HFpEF group displayed a median ΔLPSS = -10% (IQR: -18%, -1%), LPSS rest<16% in 15/39(38%) and LPSS stress<16% in 25/39(64%). Changes in LPSS (ΔLPSS) were significantly greater in es-HFpEF than pre-HFpEF (p = 0.022). In multivariate analysis, this group effect was maintained after adjustment of the LPSS for systolic blood pressure, use of β-blockers, LV mass, RWT, age, and sex.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that patients with HFpEF have a marked decrease in peak strain during acute pressure overload. Longitudinal studies are needed to test and compare the clinical impact of each pattern in early and long-term follow-ups.