SCI 발표논문

SCI 발표논문

← SCI 발표논문 목록

PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0174160.

Prognostic power of global 2D strain according to left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction.

, , , ,

제1저자 차명진 · 교신저자 조구영

소속 (5)
  1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
  2. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Medical Center, Anyang, South Korea.
  3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Medical Center, Anam, South Korea.
  4. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea.
  5. Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS We aimed to evaluate the predictive power of longitudinal and circumferential fibers according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in successfully reperfused acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.

METHODS Total 691 patients (age 59±13, 20% female) underwent clinical evaluation and conventional and strain echocardiography (Global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS)). The clinical outcome was defined as the composite of death, hospitalization for heart failure, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ventricular arrhythmia.

RESULTS During a follow-up of 39±19 months, there were 47 (6.8%) clinical events. In multivariate Cox models adjusted clinical risk factors, age (HR 1.08, p = 0.001) and GLS (HR 1.37, p = 0.001) were independent predictors. The addition of GLS resulted in significant incremental improvement in the predictive value on LVEF (χ2 = 31.8→45.8, p<0.001), although GCS offers no additional benefit. In the subgroup analysis according to LVEF, adjusted with clinical factors, GLS was significant predictive for outcome for the patients with mildly depressed (LVEF 40-50%, HR 2.25, p<0.001) and significantly depressed (LVEF<40%, HR 1.28, p = 0.016) systolic function, although GCS and LVEF lost their power with LVEF<40%. For the patients with preserved LVEF (>50%), GLS, GCS and LVEF did not show significant predictive power.

CONCLUSIONS GLS is a most powerful predictor of outcome in successfully reperfused STEMI patients, especially with depressed LV dysfunction, although GCS and LVEF lost their predictive power for the patients with significantly depressed LV function. However, GLS did not predict outcome for the patients with preserved LVEF (>50%).

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1 Patients flow with exclusion criteria. IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; ECMO, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; CRRT, continuous renal replacement therapy; AF, atrial fibrillation; RVR, rapid ventricular response; CABG, Coronary Artery Bypass Graft surgery; CAG, coronary arteriography.
Fig 2
Fig 2 The prognostic power of 2D-strain and LVEF in the subgroup analysis. To exclude the confounding effects of clinical risk factors effect, the subgroup analysis of each factor were performed. The risk factors include age≥75 (n = 104), male (n = 552), hypertension (n = 323), Killip class >0 (n = 659), primary PCI (n = 647), DES implantation (n = 507), and culprit of LAD (n = 368).
Fig 3
Fig 3 Kaplan-Meier plots of GLS according to LVEF. Kaplan-Meier plots according to LVEF of preserved (EF > 50%), mild depressed (40–50%), and significantly depressed (< 40%) systolic function. A) EF>50% (13 events among 356 patients). B) LVEF 40–50% (16 events among 255 patients). C) LVEF<40% (18 events among 78 patients). GLS is a powerful predictor of clinical events and a better parameter than GCS in successfully reperfused STEMI patients, especially with significant LV dysfunction. Global strains did not predict outcome for the patients with preserved LVEF.
Fig 4
Fig 4 The composite outcome and its individual components, adjusted with clinical factors. ACD = all-cause death, HF = heart failure, MI = Myocardial infarction, VA = non-fatal ventricular arrhythmia. Although GLS, GCS, and LVEF were predictors for composite outcome, their prediction power was best for cardiac death.

그림 출처: PubMed Central 공개 논문 (PMC5363861)

Comment · 정정

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

그 밖의 정보
출판 형태
Journal Article
저널
PloS one · eISSN 1932-6203
전자 출판
2017-03-23
MeSH
Age Factors · Aged · Echocardiography / methods · Female · Hospitalization / statistics & numerical data · Humans · Male · Middle Aged · Prognosis · Proportional Hazards Models · Risk Factors · ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction / diagnosis / mortality / physiopathology · Stroke Volume / physiology · Ventricular Function, Left / physiology
참고문헌
28편