Prognostic utility of diastolic dysfunction and speckle tracking echocardiography in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prognostic utility of diastolic dysfunction and speckle tracking echocardiography in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AU - Hansen, Sune

AU - Brainin, Philip

AU - Sengelov, Morten

AU - Jorgensen, Peter Godsk

AU - Bruun, Niels Eske

AU - Olsen, Flemming Javier

AU - Fritz-Hansen, Thomas

AU - Schou, Morten

AU - Gislason, Gunnar

AU - Biering-Sorensen, Tor

PY - 2020/2/1

Y1 - 2020/2/1

N2 - Aims: We hypothesized that grading of diastolic dysfunction (DDF) according to two DDF grading algorithms and strain imaging yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: We enrolled ambulatory HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction < 45%; N = 1 065) patients who underwent echocardiography and speckle tracking assessment of global longitudinal strain (GLS). Patients were stratified according to DDF grades (Grades I–III) according to two contemporary DDF grading algorithms. Prognostic performance was assessed by C-statistics. Of the originally 1 065 enrolled patients, a total of 645 (61%) patients (age: 67 ± 11 years, male: 72%, ejection fraction: 27 ± 9%) were classified according to both DDF grading algorithms. Concordance between the algorithms was moderate (kappa = 0.48) and the reclassification rate was 33%. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years (1.9, 4.7 years), 101 (16%) died from all causes. When comparing DDF Grade I vs. Grade III, both algorithms provided prognostic information [Nagueh: (hazard ratio) HR 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI),1.32–3.31, P = 0.002; Johansen: HR 2.47, 95% CI, 1.57–3.87, P < 0.001]. However, when comparing DDF Grade II vs. Grade III, only the Johansen algorithm yielded prognostic information (Nagueh: HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.60–1.77, P = 0.90; Johansen: HR 2.26, 95% CI, 1.35–3.77, P = 0.002). We found no difference in prognostic performance between the two algorithms (C-statistics: 0.604 vs. 0.623, P = 0.24). Assessed by C-statistics, the most powerful predictors of the endpoint from the two algorithms were E/e'-ratio (C-statistics: 0.644), tricuspid regurgitation velocity (C-statistics: 0.625) and E/A-ratio (C-statistics: 0.602). When adding GLS to a combination of these predictors, the prognostic performance increased significantly (C-statistics: 0.705 vs. C-statistics: 0.634, P = 0.028). Conclusions: Evaluation of DDF in patients with HFrEF yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality. Furthermore, adding GLS to contemporary algorithms of DDF adds novel prognostic information.

AB - Aims: We hypothesized that grading of diastolic dysfunction (DDF) according to two DDF grading algorithms and strain imaging yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: We enrolled ambulatory HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction < 45%; N = 1 065) patients who underwent echocardiography and speckle tracking assessment of global longitudinal strain (GLS). Patients were stratified according to DDF grades (Grades I–III) according to two contemporary DDF grading algorithms. Prognostic performance was assessed by C-statistics. Of the originally 1 065 enrolled patients, a total of 645 (61%) patients (age: 67 ± 11 years, male: 72%, ejection fraction: 27 ± 9%) were classified according to both DDF grading algorithms. Concordance between the algorithms was moderate (kappa = 0.48) and the reclassification rate was 33%. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years (1.9, 4.7 years), 101 (16%) died from all causes. When comparing DDF Grade I vs. Grade III, both algorithms provided prognostic information [Nagueh: (hazard ratio) HR 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI),1.32–3.31, P = 0.002; Johansen: HR 2.47, 95% CI, 1.57–3.87, P < 0.001]. However, when comparing DDF Grade II vs. Grade III, only the Johansen algorithm yielded prognostic information (Nagueh: HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.60–1.77, P = 0.90; Johansen: HR 2.26, 95% CI, 1.35–3.77, P = 0.002). We found no difference in prognostic performance between the two algorithms (C-statistics: 0.604 vs. 0.623, P = 0.24). Assessed by C-statistics, the most powerful predictors of the endpoint from the two algorithms were E/e'-ratio (C-statistics: 0.644), tricuspid regurgitation velocity (C-statistics: 0.625) and E/A-ratio (C-statistics: 0.602). When adding GLS to a combination of these predictors, the prognostic performance increased significantly (C-statistics: 0.705 vs. C-statistics: 0.634, P = 0.028). Conclusions: Evaluation of DDF in patients with HFrEF yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality. Furthermore, adding GLS to contemporary algorithms of DDF adds novel prognostic information.

KW - Diastolic dysfunction

KW - Speckle tracking

KW - Prognosis

U2 - 10.1002/ehf2.12532

DO - 10.1002/ehf2.12532

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31814331

SN - 2055-5822

JO - E S C Heart Failure

JF - E S C Heart Failure

ER -