Peak left atrial strain as a single measure for the non-invasive assessment of left ventricular filling pressures.

Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular (LV) filling pressures is performed using a multi-parametric algorithm. Left atrial (LA) strain was recently found to accurately classify the degree of diastolic dysfunction. We hypothesized that LA strain could be used as a stand-alone marker and sought to identify and test a cutoff, which would accurately detect elevated LV pressures. We studied 76 patients with a spectrum of LV function who underwent same-day echocardiogram and invasive left-heart catheterization. Speckle tracking was used to measure peak LA strain. The protocol involved a retrospective derivation group (N = 26) and an independent prospective validation cohort (N = 50) to derive and then test a peak LA strain cutoff which would identify pre-A-wave LV diastolic pressure > 15 mmHg. The guidelines-based assessment of filling pressures and peak LA strain were compared side-by-side against invasive hemodynamic data. In the derivation cohort, receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed area under curve of 0.76 and a peak LA strain cutoff < 20% was identified as optimal to detect elevated filling pressure. In the validation cohort, peak LA strain demonstrated better agreement with the invasive reference (81%) than the guidelines algorithm (72%). The improvement in classification using LA strain compared to the guidelines was more pronounced in subjects with normal LV function (91% versus 81%). In summary, the use of a peak LA strain to estimate elevated LV filling pressures is more accurate than the current guidelines. Incorporation of LA strain into the non-invasive assessment of LV diastolic function may improve the detection of elevated filling pressures.

Invasive Validation of the Echocardiographic Assessment of Left Ventricular Filling Pressures Using the 2016 Diastolic Guidelines: Head-to-Head Comparison with the 2009 Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recent American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) guidelines for echocardiographic evaluation of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function provide a practical, simplified diagnostic algorithm for estimating LV filling pressure. The aim of this study was to test the accuracy of this algorithm against invasively measured pressures and compare it with the accuracy of the previous 2009 guidelines in the same patient cohort. METHODS: Ninety patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography immediately before left heart catheterization. Mitral inflow E/A ratio, E/e', tricuspid regurgitation velocity, and left atrial volume index were used to estimate LV filling pressure as normal or elevated using the ASE/EACVI algorithm. Invasive LV pre-A pressure was used as a reference, with >12 mm Hg defined as elevated. RESULTS: Invasive LV pre-A pressure was elevated in 40 (44%) and normal in 50 (56%) patients. The 2016 algorithm resulted in classification of 9 of 90 patients (10%) as indeterminate but estimated LV filling pressures in agreement with the invasive reference in 61 of 81 patients (75%), with sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.81. The 2009 algorithm could not definitively classify 4 of 90 patients (4.4%), but estimated LV filling pressures in agreement with the invasive reference in 64 of 86 patients (74%), with sensitivity of 0.79 and specificity of 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: The 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for estimation of filling pressures are more user friendly and efficient than the 2009 guidelines and provide accurate estimates of LV filling pressure in the majority of patients when compared with invasive measurements. The simplicity of the new algorithm did not compromise its accuracy and is likely to encourage its incorporation into clinical decision making.

Feasibility of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain Measurements from Contrast-Enhanced Echocardiographic Images.

BACKGROUND: Although left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an index of systolic function recommended by the guidelines, poor image quality may hamper strain measurements. While contrast agents are commonly used to improve endocardial visualization, no commercial speckle-tracking software is able to measure strain in contrast-enhanced images. This study aimed to test the accuracy of speckle-tracking software when applied to contrast-enhanced images in patients with suboptimal image quality. METHODS: We studied patients with a wide range of GLS values who underwent transthoracic echocardiography. Protocol 1 included 44 patients whose images justified use of contrast but still allowed noncontrast speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE), which was judged as accurate and used as a reference. Protocol 2 included 20 patients with poor image quality that precluded noncontrast STE; cardiac magnetic resonance- (CMR-) derived strain was used as the reference instead. Half the manufacturer recommended dose of a commercial contrast agent (Definity/Optison/Lumason) was used to provide partial contrast enhancement. Higher than normal mechanical indices (0.6-0.7) and lowest frequency range for maximal penetration settings were used for imaging. GLS was measured (Epsilon) with and without contrast-enhanced images and by CMR-derived feature tracking (TomTec). Comparisons included linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The contrast STE analysis failed in 4/64 patients (6%). Manual corrections were needed to optimize tracking with contrast in all patients. GLS measurements were in good agreement between contrast and noncontrast images (r = 0.85; mean GLS in the contrast images, -12.9% ± 4.7%; bias, 0.34% ± 2.4%). Good agreement was also noted between contrast STE- and CMR-derived strain (r = 0.83; mean, GLS -13.5% ± 4.0%; bias, 0.72% ± 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that GLS measurements from contrast-enhanced images are feasible and accurate in most patients, even in those with poor image quality that precludes strain measurements without contrast enhancement.

Quantification of Right Ventricular Size and Function from Contrast-Enhanced Three-Dimensional Echocardiographic Images.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography directly assesses right ventricular (RV) volumes without geometric assumptions, despite the complex shape of the right ventricle, and accordingly is more accurate and reproducible than the two-dimensional methodology, which is able to measure only surrogate parameters of RV function. Volumetric analysis has been hampered by frequent inability to clearly visualize RV endocardium, especially the RV free wall, in 3D echocardiographic images. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that RV contrast enhancement during 3D echocardiographic imaging would improve the accuracy of RV volume and function analysis. METHODS: Thirty patients with a wide range of RV size and function and image quality underwent transthoracic 3D echocardiography with and without contrast enhancement and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging on the same day. RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and ejection fraction were measured from contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced 3D echocardiographic images and compared with cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference values using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. Blinded repeated measurements were performed to assess measurement variability. RESULTS: RV contrast enhancement was feasible in all patients. RV volumes obtained both with and without contrast enhancement correlated highly with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (end-diastolic volume, r = 0.90 and r = 0.92; end-systolic volume, r = 0.92 and r = 0.94, respectively), but the correlation for ejection fraction was better with contrast (r = 0.87 vs r = 0.70). Biases were smaller with contrast for all three parameters (end-diastolic volume, -16 ± 23 vs -36 ± 25 mL; end-systolic volume, -10 ± 16 vs -23 ± 18 mL; ejection fraction, -0.7 ± 5.5% vs -2.7 ± 8.1% of the mean measured values), reflecting improved accuracy. Also, measurement reproducibility was improved by contrast enhancement. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast enhancement improves the visualization of RV endocardial borders, resulting in more accurate and reproducible 3D echocardiographic measurements of RV size and function. This approach may be particularly useful in patients with suboptimal image quality.

Three-Dimensional Echocardiographic Automated Quantification of Left Heart Chamber Volumes Using an Adaptive Analytics Algorithm: Feasibility and Impact of Image Quality in Nonselected Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although 3D echocardiography (3DE) allows accurate and reproducible quantification of cardiac chambers, it has not been integrated into clinical practice because it relies on manual input, which interferes with workflow. A recently developed automated adaptive analytics algorithm for simultaneous quantification of left ventricular and atrial (LV, LA) volumes was found to be accurate and reproducible in patients with good images. We sought to prospectively test its feasibility and accuracy in consecutive patients in relationship with image quality and reader experience. METHODS: Three hundred consecutive patients underwent 3DE. Image quality was graded as poor, adequate, or good. Images were analyzed by an expert echocardiographer to obtain LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) and LA volume using the automated analysis (HeartModel, Philips, Andover, MA) with and without editing the endocardial boundaries and using conventional manual tracing (QLAB, Philips, Andover, MA) blinded to the automated measurements as a reference. In a subgroup of 100 patients, automated analysis was repeated by two readers without 3DE experience. RESULTS: Automated analysis failed in 31/300 patients (10%). Patients with poor image quality (n = 72, 24%) showed suboptimal agreement with the reference technique, especially for LVEF. Importantly, patients with adequate (n = 89, 30%) and good (n = 108, 36%) images showed small biases and excellent correlations without border corrections, which were further improved with editing. In contrast, border corrections by inexperienced readers did not improve the agreement with reference values. CONCLUSIONS: Automated 3DE analysis allows accurate quantification of left-heart size and function in 66% of consecutive patients, while in the remaining patients, its performance is limited/unreliable due to image quality. Border corrections require 3DE experience to improve the accuracy of the automated measurements. In patients with sufficient image quality, this automated approach has the potential to overcome the workflow limitations of the 3D analysis in clinical practice.

Atrial-focused views improve the accuracy of two-dimensional echocardiographic measurements of the left and right atrial volumes: a contribution to the increase in normal values in the guidelines update.

Current guidelines recommend that the atria be measured in 2D echocardiographic (2DE) apical views using the method-of-disks (MOD) or area-length (AL) technique as an alternative, although no definitive data exists that these are interchangeable. However, standard apical views maximize the long-axis of the left ventricle, rather than the dimensions of the atria, resulting in atrial foreshortening. We hypothesized that the increase in normal values of atrial volumes in the recent guidelines update was driven by data obtained using either the AL technique or dedicated atrial-focused views, which maximize the longitudinal dimension of the atria and thus provide larger volumes than the MOD measurements in standard apical views. We prospectively studied 30 patients (Philips iE33) to compare 2DE measurements of left and right atrial volumes (LAV, RAV) using the MOD and AL techniques in standard and atrial-focused views, against 3D echocardiography (3DE) derived volumes (QLab) as a reference. Compared to standard views, atrial-focused views provided significantly larger MOD volumes for both atria, which were in better agreement with 3DE, as reflected by higher correlation coefficients (LAV: r = 0.95 vs. 0.89; RAV: r = 0.89 vs. 0.84), smaller biases (LAV: -1 ml vs. 7 ml; RAV: 3 ml vs. 7 ml) and tighter limits of agreement. This was also the case for the AL measurements, which were minimally larger than the MOD values (NS) for both atria. In conclusion, atrial-focused views are a more accurate alternative to standard apical views, which provides larger volumes. This finding can explain the increase in the normal values in the recent guidelines update, which was mostly driven by the use of atrial-focused views, rather than by the differences between MOD and AL techniques. This understanding is essential in order to correctly integrate the revised normal values into clinical practice.