Integration of Wall Motion, Coronary Flow Velocity, and Left Ventricular Contractile Reserve in a Single Test: Prognostic Value of Vasodilator Stress Echocardiography in Patients with Diabetes

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 692-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauro Cortigiani ◽  
Alda Huqi ◽  
Quirino Ciampi ◽  
Tonino Bombardini ◽  
Francesco Bovenzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Velocity ◽  
Coronary Flow ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Stress Echocardiography ◽  
Wall Motion ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Contractile Reserve ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Coronary Flow Velocity ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Additional prognostic value of heart rate reserve over left ventricular contractile reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in diabetic patients with negative vasodilator stress echocardiography by regional wall motion criteria

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauro Cortigiani ◽  
Quirino Ciampi ◽  
Clara Carpeggiani ◽  
Cristiano Lisi ◽  
Francesco Bovenzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Flow ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Stress Echocardiography ◽  
Wall Motion ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Contractile Reserve ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Normal Value ◽  
Coronary Flow Velocity ◽  
Cardiac Autonomic Dysfunction

Abstract Aims  In diabetic patients, a blunted left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) and/or a reduced coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) identify patients at higher risk in spite of stress echocardiography (SE) negative for ischaemia. Cardiac autonomic dysfunction contributes to risk profile independently of inducible ischaemia and can be assessed with heart rate reserve (HRR). We sought to assess the added prognostic value of HRR to LVCR and CFVR in diabetic patients with non-ischaemic SE. Methods and results  Six-hundred and thirty-six diabetic patients (age 68 ± 9 years, 396 men, ejection fraction 58 ± 10%) with sinus rhythm on resting electrocardiogram underwent dipyridamole SE in a two-centre prospective study with assessment of wall motion, force-based LVCR (stress/rest ratio, normal value > 1.1), CFVR of the left anterior descending coronary artery (stress/rest ratio, normal value >2.0), and HRR (stress/rest ratio, normal value >1.22). All-cause death was the only considered endpoint. During a median follow-up of 39 months, 94 (15%) patients died. Independent predictors of death were abnormal CFVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–2.52, P = 0.05], reduced LVCR (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.15–2.69, P = 0.009), and blunted HRR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.24–2.96, P = 0.003). Eight-year death rate was 9% for patients with triple negativity (n = 252; 40%), 18% for those with single positivity (n = 216; 34%), 36% with double positivity (n = 124; 19%), and 64% for triple positivity (n = 44; 7%) (P < 0.0001). Conclusion  Diabetic patients with dipyridamole SE negative for ischaemia still may have a significant risk in presence of an abnormal LVCR and/or CFVR and/or HRR, which assess the underlying myocardial, microvascular, and cardiac autonomic dysfunction. Clinical trials Gov Identifier NCT 030.49995.

P4981The reduction of coronary flow velocity reserve in heart failure with reduced, mid-range or preserved ejection fraction

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Daros ◽  
L Cortigiani ◽  
Q Ciampi ◽  
N Gaibazzi ◽  
A Zagatina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Flow Velocity ◽  
Coronary Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Contractile Reserve ◽  
Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve ◽  
Coronary Flow Velocity ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients

Abstract Background Coronary microvascular disease has been described in heart failure (HF) in presence of angiographically normal epicardial coronary arteries. The prevalence of a reduction of coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in different types of HF and its link with left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) is unclear. Aim To assess CFVR and LVCR in HF. Methods In a prospective, observational, multicenter study, we recruited 380 patients (234 male, 61%, age 66±11 years): 143 (38%) with HF and reduced (<40%) ejection fraction (HFrEF); 98 (26%) with HF and mid-range (40–50%) ejection fraction (HFmrEF); 139 (36%) patients with HF and preserved (>50%) ejection fraction (HFpEF). A control group of 52 asymptomatic patients (23 male, 44%, age 61±14 years) referred to testing for screening was also selected (Controls). All patients underwent dipyridamole (0.84 mg/kg) stress echocardiography in 12 accredited laboratories of 3 countries (Argentina, Brazil and Italy). CFVR was calculated as the stress/rest ratio of diastolic peak flow velocity pulsed-Doppler assessment of left anterior descending (LAD) artery flow. We assessed left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) based on global LV Force (systolic blood pressure/end-systolic volume). Results Reduced (≤2.0) CFVR was observed in 0/52 controls (0%); 25/139 HFpEF (18%); 28/98 HFmrEF (29%); 78/143 HFrEF (54%, p<0.001 vs all other groups). CFVR was highest in controls (2.80±0.57), lower in HFpEF (2.51±0.57) and HFmrEF (2.26±0.44), lowest in HFrEF (2.04±0.48, p<0.001 vs all other groups). The correlation with LVCR was absent in controls (r=0.098, p=0.491) and HFmrEF (r=0.032, p=0.756), present in HFrEF (r=0.375, p<0.001) and HFpEF (r=0.314, p<0.001). LVCR vs CFVR Conclusions CFVR is frequently abnormal in all types of HF, although more frequently and more profoundly in HFrEF. CFVR mirrors contractile reserve in HFrEF and - less tightly - in HFpEF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document