Evaluation of left ventricular stiffness with echocardiography
Nanjun Zhang,Liting Tang,Linling Zhang,Qinhui Wang,Li Zhao,Xiaoliang Liu,Yimin Hua,Hongyu Duan,Shuran Shao,Kaiyu Zhou,Chuan Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.15737
2024-01-26
Echocardiography
Abstract:Half of patients with heart failure are presented with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The pathophysiology of these patients is complex, but increased left ventricular (LV) stiffness has been proven to play a key role. However, the application of this parameter is limited due to the requirement for invasive catheterization for its measurement. With advances in ultrasound technology, significant progress has been made in the noninvasive assessment of LV chamber or myocardial stiffness using echocardiography. Therefore, this review aims to summarize the pathophysiological mechanisms, correlations with invasive LV stiffness constants, applications in different populations, as well as the limitations of echocardiography‐derived indices for the assessment of both LV chamber and myocardial stiffness. Indices of LV chamber stiffness, such as the ratio of E/e' divided by left ventricular end‐diastolic volume (E/e'/LVEDV), the ratio of E/SRe (early diastolic strain rates)/LVEDV, and diastolic pressure‐volume quotient (DPVQ), are derived from the relationship between echocardiographic parameters of LV filling pressure (LVFP) and LV size. However, these methods are surrogate and lumped measurements, relying on E/e' or E/SRe for evaluating LVFP. The limitations of E/e' or E/SRe in the assessment of LVFP may contribute to the moderate correlation between E/e'/LVEDV or E/SRe/LVEDV and LV stiffness constants. Even the most validated measurement (DPVQ) is considered unreliable in individual patients. In comparison to E/e'/LVEDV and E/SRe/LVEDV, indices like time‐velocity integral (TVI) measurements of pulmonary venous and transmitral flows may demonstrate better performance in assessing LV chamber stiffness, as evidenced by their higher correlation with LV stiffness constants. However, only one study has been conducted on the exploration and application of TVI in the literature, and the accuracy of assessing LV chamber stiffness remains to be confirmed. Regarding echocardiographic indices for LV myocardial stiffness evaluation, parameters such as epicardial movement index (EMI)/ diastolic wall strain (DWS), intrinsic velocity propagation of myocardial stretch (iVP), and shear wave imaging (SWI) have been proposed. While the alteration of DWS and its predictive value for adverse outcomes in various populations have been widely validated, it has been found that DWS may be better considered as an overall marker of cardiac function performance rather than pure myocardial stiffness. Although the effectiveness of iVP and SWI in assessing left ventricular myocardial stiffness has been demonstrated in animal models and clinical studies, both indices have their limitations. Overall, it seems that currently no echocardiography‐derived indices can reliably and accurately assess LV stiffness, despite the development of several parameters. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of LV stiffness using all available parameters may be more accurate and enable earlier detection of alterations in LV stiffness.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems