Right ventricular dysfunction by 3D echocardiography is the best predictor for death and re-hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Abstract

Abstract Background In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), right ventricular (RV) size and dysfunction by 2-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) were identified as risk factors for mortality and morbidity, but 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) enabled itself as a more reproducible and accurate method. Aim To assess the comparative prognostic value of parameters of RV size and dysfunction, measured by 2DE and 3DE, in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic HFrEF, on optimal clinical care, at long-term follow-up. Methods 142 consecutive patients (62±12 yrs, 104 males) with HFrEF, in sinus rhythm, were assessed by 2DE and 3DE, including RV full-volume acquisitions. RV diameter (RVd), RV end-systolic (RV_EDA) and end-diastolic areas (RV_ESA), RV fractional area change (RVFAC), and 2D_TAPSE were measured by 2DE. RV end-diastolic (RV_EDV) and end-systolic volumes (RV_ESV), RV ejection fraction (RV_EF), and 3D_TAPSE were measured by a dedicated 3DE software. Patients were followed for 37±16 months after the index event. Primary outcome was cardiac death (CD). Secondary outcomes were: 1) HF hospitalizations (HFH); 2) a composite cardiac events (CE) end-point of CD or HFH, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, arrhythmias, or CRT. Results 38 CD, 47 HFH, and 62 CE occurred during follow-up. Mean RVd was 34±7 mm, RV_EDA 20±11 cm2, RV_ESA 12±5 cm2, RV_FAC 37±13%, RV_EDV 84±25 ml/m2, RV_ESV 52±22 ml/m2, and RV_EF 39±10%. Mean 2D_TAPSE was 18±4 mm, while mean 3D_TAPSE was 16±4 mm. By 2DE, only RV_ESA and RV_FAC, but not RV_EDA or RVd, correlated with CD, HFH, and CE. 2D_TAPSE correlated with HFH, but not with CD or CE, while 3D_TAPSE correlated with all primary and secondary outcomes. By 3DE, RV_ESV, but not RV_EDV, correlated with CD, HFH, and CE. Moreover, 3D RV_EF had better correlations with primary and secondary outcomes than 2D RV_FAC (z=3.8, z=2.5, and z=2.5, all p<0.01). By multivariate linear regression analysis including RV_ESA, RV_FAC, RV_ESV, RV_EF, and 3D_TAPSE, only RV_EF was an independent predictor for CD and HFH (r2=0.68 and r2=0.30, both p<0.001). Conclusion In patients with ischemic and non-ischemic HFrEF, 3DE parameters of RV size and dysfunction are better predictors for death and re-hospitalization than 2DE parameters. The RV_EF measured by 3DE was the best predictor for death in patients with HFrEF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None