Left atrial strain differences between hypertensive and sarcomeric left ventricular hypertrophy: a sign of sarcomeric auricular myopathy?
M Ramos Jovani,I Forado,F Loncaric,A Doltra,L Sanchis,A Arenas,J J Rodriguez-Arias,E Sole,D Pereda,E Quintana,A Garcia-Alvarez,M Sitges
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.035
IF: 39.3
2024-10-28
European Heart Journal
Abstract:Introduction In clinical practice, left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy is a common finding that can be caused by physiologic or pathologic conditions. An etiologic diagnosis is extremely important because it may change the prognosis and management of the patient and his family. Left atrial (LA) dysfunction is common due to diastolic dysfunction but, in patients with sarcomeric LV hypertrophy, primary cardiomyopathy disease could also be present. Purpose To evaluate if there are differences in LA function between arterial hypertension (HT) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients. Methods 73 patients with HCM (according to ESC guidelines criteria) and 82 patients with HT (under treatment with ≥1 hypertensive drug for ≥3 months) and ≥13mm of LV hypertrophy underwent an echocardiography to assess LA function with strain analysis and LV diastolic function. Continuous normally distributed variables were compared with T-student test and categoric variables with square-chi or exact Fisher test if required, accepting as significant a p-value <0.05. Results Globally, HCM patients showed thicker LV walls and larger LA indexed volumes (18.7±4.7 vs. 13.3±0,8 mm and 44.9±20.7 vs. 30.7±8.8 ml/m2, p<0.000 for both). Also, HCM patients presented diastolic dysfunction and atrial fibrillation history in a higher frequency (31 vs. 7.6% and 16.4% vs. 0%, p<0.000 for both). LA strain was significantly lower in HCM patients as compared to the HT group (LA contractile 11.5±5.8 vs. 17.2±4.4, p<0.000; LA conduit 12.2±5.4 vs. 13.3±3.8, p=0.041; and LA reservoir 23.9±8.7 vs. 31.1±5.9, p<0.000). In the subgroup of patients with moderate-severe LV hypertrophy (<17mm) and no significant mitral regurgitation (n=103; HCM=21, HT=82), LA contractile strain remained lower in HCM as compared to HT patients (13.2±4.8% vs. 17.2±4.4%, p<0.000) (figure 1); without differences in diastolic dysfunction, LA volumes, significant mitral regurgitation or atrial fibrillation history. Conclusions Our results show that LA strain is more impaired in HCM patients as compared to HT patients. Specifically, contractile LA strain remained lower even in those patients with moderate-severe LV hypertrophy, despite having similar LV diastolic function, LA indexed volumes, significant mitral regurgitation, or atrial fibrillation history. These findings could be caused by HCM involvement of the LA myocytes. In the context of moderate-severe hypertrophy of unknown origin with non-significant mitral regurgitation, the detection of abnormally reduced LA strain could indicate the presence of an HCM.Figure 1
cardiac & cardiovascular systems