P1396 Three-dimensional cardiac mechanics for prediction of events in Chagas disease

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Chagas disease (CD) is an endemic infectious disease that still remains a great economic burden. Three-dimensional speckle tracking (3D STE) may play a role in the evaluation of CD. We assessed the hypothesis that 3D STE may predict clinical events in patients with CD. Methods This was a convenience sample. Patients with any systemic disease were excluded. Eight hundred and eight patients with CD were evaluated but only seventy-two were included. Clinical, electrocardiographic and comprehensive conventional and 3D echocardiography were performed. Patients were followed up for thirty-six up to sixty months. Clinical events were defined as hospitalization for heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiovascular death. Results Seventy-two patients were enrolled in three groups: Group 1 (G1), patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 0.35 (N = 22); Group 2 (G2), LVEF between 0.35 and 0.55 (N = 22); Group 3 (G3), normal LVEF (N = 28). Gender distribution, mean age, anthropometric variables and risk factors were similar between the groups. 2D STE feasibility was 99.5, 99 and 100% in G1, G2 and G3. 3D Longitudinal strain feasibility was 93, 89 e 88% in G1, G2 and G3. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities (Blant-Altman) for longitudinal (2D and 3D GLS), circumferential (3D GCS), radial (3D GRS) and area strain (3D AS) are displayed in Table 1. Hospitalization was related do indexed left atrium volume (p = 0,03) in G1. In G2, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia were related to 2D GLS values (p = 0,04); all clinical events were related do diastolic function (p = 0,30). In G1 and G2, hospitalization was related do indexed left atrium volume (p = 0,01); all clinical events were related do diastolic function (p = 0,004) and 3D LVEF (p = 0,02). 3D STE parameters were not related to clinical events. Conclusions In conclusion, 3D STE in patients with CD appears to be an accurate, reproducible and promising method but was not related to clinical events. Table 1 INTEROBSERVER INTRAOBSERVER 2D GLS 0.96 ± 0.04 0.90 ± 0.08 3D GLS 0.92 ± 0.07 0.93 ± 0.10 3D GCS 0.88 ± 0.07 0.82 ± 0.15 3D AS 0.93 ± 0.05 0.90 ± 0.05 3D RS 0.85 ± 0.05 0.84 ± 0.11 Table 1. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities for longitudinal (2D and 3D GLS), circumferential (3D GCS), radial (3D GRS) and area strain (3D AS).