Two-dimensional echocardiographic scoring system of the left ventricular filling pressure and clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Introduction Elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressure in non-decompensated state is a powerful indicator of worse clinical outcomes in heart failure regardless of LV ejection fraction. However, its detection is often challenging in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Purpose This study aimed to elucidate the predictive value of recently proposed echocardiographic parameter of LV filling pressure, Visually assessed time difference between the Mitral valve and Tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score in HFpEF. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 310 well-differentiated HFpEF patients in stable conditions. Using two-dimensional echocardiographic images, time sequence of opening of mitral valve and tricuspid valve was visually assessed in the apical four-chamber view and scored to 0 to 2 (0: tricuspid valve first, 1: simultaneous, 2: mitral valve first). When the inferior vena cava diameter was dilated, 1 point was added and VMT score was calculated as four grades from 0 to 3. Based on the previous study, VMT≥2 was regarded as a sign of elevated LV filling pressure (Figure 1). LV diastolic function was graded according to the guidelines. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiac death and heart failure hospitalisation during the two years after echocardiographic examination. Results During the follow-up period, 55 events (18%) occurred, including four cardiac deaths and 51 heart failure hospitalisations. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that VMT≥2 (n = 54) was associated with worse outcomes compared to patients showing VMT ≤ 1 (n = 256) (log-rank test P <0.001). Furthermore, VMT≥2 was associated with worse outcomes when tested in 100 HFpEF patients with atrial fibrillation (log-rank test P = 0.026) (Figure 2). In the adjusted model including age, systolic blood pressure, serum albumin level, and the LV diastolic function grading, VMT≥2 was independently associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio: 2.23; 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 4.24, P = 0.014). Additionally, the nested regression model showed that VMT scoring provided an incremental prognostic value over clinically relevant variables (age, sex, the plasma brain natriuretic peptide level, atrial fibrillation) and LV diastolic function grading (chi-square 10.8 vs 16.3, P = 0.035). Conclusions In patients with HFpEF, the VMT score was independently and incrementally associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Moreover, it discriminated worse clinical outcome even in HFpEF patients with atrial fibrillation. Abstract Figure. VMT scoring Abstract Figure. Kaplan-Meier analysis