RESUMO
Two methods are currently available for left atrial (LA) strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography, with two different reference timings for starting the analysis: QRS (QRS-LASr) and P wave (P-LASr). The aim of MASCOT HIT study was to define which of the two was more reproducible, more feasible, and less time consuming. In 26 expert centers, LA strain was analyzed by two different echocardiographers (young vs senior) in a blinded fashion. The study population included: healthy subjects, patients with arterial hypertension or aortic stenosis (LA pressure overload, group 2) and patients with mitral regurgitation or heart failure (LA volume-pressure overload, group 3). Difference between the inter-correlation coefficient (ICC) by the two echocardiographers using the two techniques, feasibility and analysis time of both methods were analyzed. A total of 938 subjects were included: 309 controls, 333 patients in group 2, and 296 patients in group 3. The ICC was comparable between QRS-LASr (0.93) and P-LASr (0.90). The young echocardiographers calculated QRS-LASr in 90% of cases, the expert ones in 95%. The feasibility of P-LASr was 85% by young echocardiographers and 88% by senior ones. QRS-LASr young median time was 110 s (interquartile range, IR, 78-149) vs senior 110 s (IR 78-155); for P-LASr, 120 s (IR 80-165) and 120 s (IR 90-161), respectively. LA strain was feasible in the majority of patients with similar reproducibility for both methods. QRS complex guaranteed a slightly higher feasibility and a lower time wasting compared to the use of P wave as the reference.
RESUMO
Background: Development of carcinoid heart disease (CHD) is the major negative prognostic factor in patients with the carcinoid syndrome. The only effective treatment is valve replacement. However, the selection of candidates and determination of optimal timing remain unclear. Considerable variability in local screening and treatment strategies exist. Methods: In this single-centre study, we retrospectively analysed the diagnostic process and outcome of all CHD patients who underwent valve surgery between 2000 and 2016. We propose a new CHD screening and management algorithm. Results: All patients (n = 15), mean age 64 ± 7, underwent tricuspid valve surgery. In 14 of them (93%) an additional valve was replaced. In only a minority of patients (27%) CHD diagnosis was established by screening. Survival after 1, 3, 12 and 24 months was 93%, 80%, 53% and 33%, respectively. Causes of death included infections and critical illness immediately postoperatively, and tumour progression and right heart failure in the longer term. There was a trend (p = .099) towards better preoperative right ventricular function in the patients who survived more than 12 months postoperatively (TAPSE 20 mm ± 4) compared to those who died between 3 to 12 months after surgery (TAPSE 16 mm ± 1). The former group had a shorter mean interval from diagnosis of the carcinoid syndrome to cardiac diagnosis than the latter (13 vs. 105 months, p = .014). Conclusion: Mortality after valve replacement for CHD remains high. A probably underestimated cause is late referral for cardiac surgery. We propose a systematic, multidisciplinary approach to all carcinoid syndrome patients.
