assessment of lv systolic function dr nithin p g

50
Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Upload: clara-ditch

Post on 14-Dec-2015

224 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Assessment of LV Systolic Function

Dr Nithin P G

Page 2: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Overview

• Normal LV contraction• Global & regional indices of LV systolic Function• Angiographic assessments• Echocardiography• MRI• Computed Tomography• Nuclear Imaging• Take home message

Page 3: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Introduction

• Mechanical pump

• LV systolic function = Contractility

Page 4: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Normal contraction of LV

J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2008;1:366 –76

Page 5: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

ASSESSMENT OF LV FUNCTION

Page 6: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Clinically relevant indicators of global LV function

EJECTION FRACTION. • Ratio of SV to EDV. [EDV-ESV/EDV]

– Simplicity of its derivation – Ability to determine easily – Reproducibility using different imaging techniques – Extensive documentation of its clinical usefulness.

Page 7: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Ejection fraction

Drawbacks

– Depends on preload and afterload, as well as HR and synchronicity of contraction.

– Global parameter, major regional differences in contractility are presented as an average

– Given EF may have different prognostic importance according to clinical situation eg severe MR

Preload increases [AR,MR, Anemia]

EF increases

Afterload increases [AS] EF decreases

Page 8: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Hemodynamic measurements

• Cardiac index (liter/min/m2) = HR × SV/BSA

• Stroke Volume index (ml/m2) = SV/BSA

• Stroke Work index (ml×mmHg/m2) = SVI × mean SBP

– LVSW reasonably good measure of LV contraction ,exceptions

• Volume or Pressure overload

• RWMA

Page 9: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

ESPVR

ESPVR or maximum elastance- method for LV contractility• Nearly independent of preload and afterload• Multielectrode catheters –impedance, Vol., micromanometer Pressure

recordings [aortic dicrotic notch pressure as ESPr & Minimum LV chamber volume ]

• Pacing/ IVC balloon occlusion/ Drugs PV loops at different loads line drawn across ES points

• Slope of line = measure of LV contractility

Page 10: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

ESPVR• ESPVR accurately reflect myocardial contractility independent of

ventricular loading [ in various canine and human studies]

• Drawbacks• Difficult to perform• Invasive • Spontaneous variability over the time it takes to make

measurements• Curves dependent on gender, age, position of IVS [RV filling

pressure, LBBB]

Page 11: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

MAXIMAL RATE OF PRESSURE RISE• Maximum rate of rise of LV Sys. Pr. [IVC]• Analogous to the maximal rate of tension development of isolated

cardiac muscle [well-established index of myocardial contractility]• Relatively load independent [ changes to afterload & preload < 10%

in normal physiological limits]

Drawbacks• Comparison b/w individuals

difficult• c/c AS dP/dt less when

contractility normal• RWMA & marked dyssynchrony

Page 12: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Regional Indices of Left Ventricular Function

• WMS [wall motion score]

• Center line chordal shortening

• Radian change, regional area change

• Strain rate imaging

• Torsion imaging

Page 13: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Centerline method

Page 14: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

ANGIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT

Page 15: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Volume calculationsV= 4/3 p [L/2] [M/2] [N/2] = p /6 LMN

ARAO= p [LRAO/2] [ M/2]= p [LRAO][M]/4

ALAO= p [LLAO/2] [N/2]= p [LLAO][N]/4

V= p /6 Lmax [4ARAO] [4ALAO]

[p LRAO][p LLAO]

Usu, Lmax= LRAO

=> V= 8 ARAO ALAO

3 p LLAO

Page 16: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Regional indices

Angiographic wall motion score– 1= normal– 2= moderate hypokinesis– 3=severe hypokinesis– 4=akinesis– 5=aneurysm/dyskinesis

• Normal score is 5

Page 17: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY

Page 18: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Assesment by Echocardiography

Ejection Fraction

1. M- mode• EF= LVEDD2-LVESD2 x100

LVEDD2

• EFc= [(1-%EF) x % DL] + %EF

DL=apex contractility 15% normal 5% hypokinetic 0% akinetic -5% dyskinetic -10% aneurysmal

– Only along a single interrogation line, regional variation in function– Does not reflect true minor axis especcially in elderly with angulation

Page 19: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Ejection fraction

2. D3 method

D1 D2

L

Vol = 4/3 p (D1/2) (D2/2) ( L/2) = 4/3 p (D1/2) (D1/2) ( 2D1/2) = p/3 (D3) = 1.047 D3 = D3

More spherical shape,

Vol. = (7/2.4+D) x D3

Page 20: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Ejection fraction3. Modified Simpson’s biplane

method [2D-Echo] 20• Vol= p/4 S ai bi L i=1 20[Difference b/w ai & bi should be less

than 20%]• Most reliable method in case of

regional difference in function• EF calculated comparable to those

measured hemodynamically

Page 21: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Ejection Fraction

4. Single plane Area- length Method

• When only one view is available

• Ventricle is considered symmetrical

• Vol= 0.85 A2

L

Page 22: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Other parameters

• Fractional Shortening

FS= LVEDD-LVESD x100

LVEDD

• Velocity of Circumferential Fiber shortening [Vcf]

Mean Vcf= FS/ LVET – Mean velocity of ventricular shortening of the minor axis of LV– Ejection phase index of systolic function

Page 23: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Other parameters

• Myocardial Performance index [TEI index]

ICT + IRT ET

– Measure of both sys & diastolic function

– Normal <0.4– Strong inverse relationship

with EF– Independent of ventricular

geometryHellenic J Cardiol 2009; 50: 60-6

Page 24: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Other parameters

M- mode parameters• EPSS

– >6mm abnormal• Descent of base

– Linear correlation b/w magnitude of annular excursion & LV function

• Rounded appearance of aortic valve closure in late systole

• Rates of systolic thickening of PW

Page 25: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Regional function indices

• WMS– Normal =1– Hypo=2– Akinetic=3– Dyskinetic=4

• WMSI S WMS/N

Page 26: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Deformation analysis• Newer methods of TDI & speckle tracking• Analysis of strain, strain rate or torsion

• Strain- L-L0/L0

• Strain rate- velocity of change over time

Page 27: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Deformation analysis

APEX

Drawbacks

• Strain not uniform from base to apex & in circumferential plane [anterior & lateral wall higher]

• Angle dependency

• Preload dependent

• Heterogenicity within the same myocardium

• Patient to patient variability

• Inter & Intra observer variability

Page 28: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

2-D Echo evaluation of LV Function

• Most common method used is Simpson’s rule

• Most accurate when LV geometry is normal

• Correlation coefficients ~ 0.75 compared to RNA, cine angiography & autopsy studies Circulation 1979, 60:760-766; Circulation 1980, 61:1119-112

• Limited by reproducibility b/w individual studies

• Improved by tissue harmonic imaging & contrast use.

Page 29: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

3D Echocardiography

• Direct evaluation of cardiac chamber volumes without the need for geometric modelling and without the detrimental effects of foreshortened views

• Direct 3D assessment of regional LV wall motion

• Quantification of systolic asynchrony to guide CRT

• 3D color Doppler imaging with volumetric quantification of regurgitant lesions , shunts , and cardiac output

J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48:2053– 69

Page 30: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

3D Echocardiography

Am J Cardiol 2005;95:809–813

Page 31: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Page 32: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

MRI

• Gold standard for assessing LV & RV functionParameters Comments

Global Function LVEFLV ESV, LV EDV

‘Gold standard’•Simpson’s rule & A-L method•Steady state free precession [SSPE]•Even in patients with abnormal geometry•Low inter & intra observer variability

Cardiol Clin 25 (2007) 15–33

Regional Function RWMA Tissue taggingDisplacement encoding [DENSE}

Wall thickening Center line methodTissue tagging

LV Strain Tissue taggingDENSE

Page 33: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

MRI

Page 34: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G
Page 35: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Assessment by MRI

Gradient echo images of sequential multiple slices of the left ventricle in short-axis planes (from base to apex) are displayed for determining left ventricle volume by Simpson’s rule

Cardiol Clin 25 (2007) 15–33

Page 36: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Assessment by MRI

Tagging of Ventricle for detection of RWMA

2-D displacement Map & Colour coded myocardial strain map

Radiology 2004;233:210–6

Radiology 2004:230:862–71

Page 37: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Page 38: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Computed Tomography

• EBCT & MDCT has excellent visualization of cardiac structures.

• Delineation of epicardial & endocardial borders allow accurate & reproducible measure of wall thickness, ESV, EDV.

• ECG gating & image post processing allows cine mode imaging

Page 39: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

ECG gated CT

Page 40: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Computed Tomography

Parameters Comments

Global Function LVEFLV ESV, LV EDV

Comparable to RNA Am J Cardiology 1999; 83 (7): 1022-1026

Regional Function Wall Motion Abnormalities and Wall thickening

Stress rest EBCT comparable to Tc SPECT for detecting CAD [EF- 81, 76; EF+RWMA- 88, 100] Am J Cardiology 1998; 81 (6): 682-687

Ventricular Remodeling Comparable to SPECT & Echocardiography J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30 (4): 555-563

Page 41: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Computed Tomography

Radiology 2005; 234:381–390

MRI [Gold Standard] > MDCT>2D-Echo & SPECT

Page 42: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Computed Tomography

• Disadvantages– Radiation risk– Contrast toxicity– Temporal resolution comparably limited

• Used when echo window very poor & MRI contraindicated

Page 43: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

NUCLEAR IMAGING

Page 44: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Radionuclide Angiography

• Equilibrium method – ECG gated, data averaged from multiple cardiac cycles, MUGA– 99mTc labeled RBC

• First- pass method– Dynamic acquisition, rapid temporal sampling to look at initial

transit

• Principal application is measurement of LVEF– ICD, ACEI use, Surgical ventricular restoration, Cardiotoxic

chemotherapeutics ( Adrimycin therapeutics), Heart Failure Trials

Page 45: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

SPECT

Parameters Comments Global Function LVEF

LV ESV, LV EDVRegional Function Wall Motion, Wall Thickening

LV contraction Histogram Dysynchrony- heterogenous phase angle distribution

Lung to Heart Ratio Increased lung uptake = incrased PCWP also in MS,MR

Transient Ischemic Dilation Ratio Apparent cavity dilation 20 to diffuse subendocardial ischemia

LV eccentricity & Shape Index

Page 46: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

SPECTLV contraction Histogram

Page 47: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

SPECT

Overall (n = 718)

Normal (n = 367) SSS<3

Mild (n = 136) SSS 4-8

Moderate (n = 78) SSS 9-13

Severe (n =137) SSS>13

Stress LHR 0.32±0.06 0.30±0.05 0.31±0.05 0.34±0.08 0.36±0.07

Rest LHR 0.31±0.06 0.30±0.05 0.31±0.05 0.32±0.07 0.35±0.06

Diff. LHR 0.006±0.05 0.003±0.046 0.000±0.048 0.017±0.065 0.012±0.053

p value: sLHR vs. rLHR 0.001 0.15 >0.2 0.02 0.008

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 45:1676-1682

Prognostic Value of Lung Sestamibi Uptake in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging of Patients With Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

Page 48: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

SPECT

Page 49: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Take Home message

• 2D Echo- most common

• MRI- precision, complex geometry

• Nuclear imaging, CT- used when other indications present

J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2008;1:652–62

Page 50: Assessment of LV Systolic Function Dr Nithin P G

Thank you