Additional Prognostic Value of 2D Right Ventricular Speckle-Tracking Strain for Prediction of Survival in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Comparative Study With Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the prognostic value of 2-dimensional (2D) right ventricular (RV) speckle tracking (STE) against cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) RV ejection fraction (EF) and feature tracking (FT) and conventional echocardiographic parameters on overall and cardiovascular (CV) survival in patients with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF). BackgroundPrior works showed that RV systolic function predicts prognosis in HFrEF. 2D RVSTE had recently been proposed as new echocardiographic method to evaluate RV dysfunction. MethodsA total of 266 patients with HFrEF (mean LVEF 23 ± 7%, 60 ± 14 years of age; 29% women) underwent RV function assessment using CMR and 2D echocardiography and were followed for a primary endpoint of overall death and secondary endpoint of CV death. ResultsAverage CMR-RVEF was 42 ± 15%, average STE RV global longitudinal strain (STE-RVGLS) was −18.0 ± 4.9%, and average CMR-FT-RVGLS was −11.8 ± 4.3%. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 102 patients died, 84 of a CV cause. RVEF, FT-RVGLS, tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), and STE-RVGLS were significant univariate predictors of overall and cardiac death. In multivariate Cox regression, age, ischemic etiology, diabetes, New York Heart Association functional class III to IV, and beta-blocker treatment were independent clinical predictors of overall mortality. CMR-RVEF (chi-square to enter = 3.9; p < 0.05), FT-RVGLS (chi-square to enter 3.7; p = 0.05), FAC (chi-square to enter 6.2; p = 0.02), and TAPSE (chi-square to enter = 4.1; p = 0.04) provided additional prognostic value over these baseline parameters, but the additional predictive value of STE-RVGLS (chi-square to enter = 10.8; p < 0.001) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than the other tests. Additional hazard ratio to predict overall mortality was 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6 to 3.9) for STE-RVGLS <−19%, 2.15 (95% CI: 1.34 to 3.43) for TAPSE >15 mm, 1.6 (95% CI: 1.02 to 2.49) for FAC >39%, 1.93 (95% CI: 1.25 to 2.99) for RVEF >41%, and 1.87 (95% CI: 1.10 to 3.19) for CMR-FT-RVGLS <−15%. Conclusions2D RVGLS provides strong additional prognostic value to predict overall and CV mortality in HFrEF, with higher predictive value than CMR-RVEF, CMR-FT-RVGLS, TAPSE, or FAC. This supports use of STE-RVGLS to identify higher-risk HFrEF patients.