Three-dimensional myocardial strain for the prediction of clinical events in patients with successfully reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background/Introduction Two-dimensional (2D) myocardial strain analysis can be used to evaluate the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction and has comparable predictive power as conventional echocardiographic parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF). Three-dimensional (3D) myocardial strain analysis is also expected to have similar clinical usefulness and overcome several inherent limitations of 2D strain analysis. However, no large-scale studies have been reported to date. Purpose We aimed to clarify the prognostic significance of 3D strain analysis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who are most likely to benefit from 3D strain analysis. Methods Patients who underwent successful revascularization for STEMI from June 2011 to April 2017 were retrospectively recruited. In addition to conventional echocardiographic parameters, 3D global area strain (GAS), 3D global longitudinal strain (GLS), as well as 2D GLS were obtained. To evaluate the clinical outcomes, we constructed a composite outcome consisting of all-cause death or re-hospitalisation due to acute decompensation of heart failure. Results From June 2011 to April 2017, 632 patients were retrospectively recruited in our hospital. Of these patients, 545 patients (86.2%) had a reliable 3D strain analysis. The clinical course of each patient was followed up for a maximum of 96 months (median 49.5 months). During follow-up periods, 55 (10.1%) among 545 patients experienced the composite outcome of all-cause death or re-hospitalisation due to acute decompensation of heart failure. Patients with adverse events were older, had more underlying diseases such as obesity, dyslipidemia, previous history of stroke, or chronic kidney disease. (all, p < 0.05) LV EF was significantly lower, while 2D GLS, 3D GLS, and 3D GAS were significantly higher in patients with poor outcomes. (all, p < 0.001) The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of LV EF, 2D GLS, 3D GLS, and 3D GAS were 0.70, 0.71, 0.67, and 0.65, respectively. (all, p < 0.05) Kaplan-Meier analysis of composite outcomes based on the best cut-off values of each parameter demonstrated similar results. (Figure 1) In the Cox proportional hazard model, the hazard ratios of LV EF, 2D GLS, and 3D GLS were 3.0, 5.5, and 2.0, respectively. (all, p < 0.05) The maximum likelihood-ratio test was performed to evaluate the additional prognostic value of 2D GLS or 3D GLS over the basic prognostic model consisting of baseline clinical characteristics and LV EF, and the likelihood ratio was 15.9 for 2D GLS (p < 0.001) and 1.49 for 3D GLS (p = 0.22). Conclusion(s) 3D strain could be reliably measured in the majority of the patients and had a significant prognostic value. However, the predictive power of the 3D strain was lower than that of the 2D strain. The clinical implications of 3D strain indices should be investigated further. Abstract Figure.