Predictive study of left ventricular end-systolic wall stress and biventricular strain for different types of heart failure after myocardial infarction
10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20250305-00112
- VernacularTitle:心脏MR左心室收缩末期壁应力与双心室应变对心肌梗死后发生不同类型心力衰竭的预测研究
- Author:
Mingtian CHEN
1
;
Yesong HOU
;
Xiaoying ZHAO
;
Lujing WANG
;
Yujiao SONG
;
Xinxiang ZHAO
Author Information
1. 昆明医科大学第二附属医院放射科，昆明 650032
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Myocardial infarction;
Heart failure;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Ventricular strain
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2025;59(12):1401-1409
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the predictive value of cardiac MR (CMR)-derived left ventricular end-systolic wall stress (LVESWS) and biventricular strain parameters for different types of heart failure in patients with myocardial infarction.Methods:This retrospective cohort study included 231 patients diagnosed with myocardial infarction by clinical and CMR criteria at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University between January 2015 and July 2023. The endpoint was the occurrence of heart failure, and patients were divided into 3 groups: no heart failure ( n=85), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n=74), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n=72). Clinical indicators such as age and infarct size were collected. CMR parameters analysis included LVESWS, left ventricular global radial strain (LVGRS), left ventricular global circumferential strain (LVGCS), left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS), right ventricular global radial strain (RVGRS), right ventricular global circumferential strain (RVGCS), right ventricular global longitudinal strain (RVGLS), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI). Differences in clinical baseline data and CMR parameters among the 3 groups were tested. Univariate Cox regression analysis was performed, followed by multivariate Cox modeling of statistically significant factors. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted for the influencing factors identified in the multivariate Cox model, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves for survival time were plotted. Results:Significant differences were observed in biventricular strain parameters (LVGRS, LVGCS, LVGLS, RVGRS, RVGCS, RVGLS), LVESWS, LVEDVI, and LVESVI among the 3 groups (all P<0.05). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that RVGCS, age, and infarct size were independent influencing factors for HFpEF after myocardial infarction (all P<0.01), while LVESWS and LVGLS were independent influencing factors for HFrEF after myocardial infarction (all P<0.001). Further ROC analysis revealed that the areas under the curve (AUC) for RVGCS, infarct size, age, RVGCS combined with age, and RVGCS combined with age and infarct size in predicting HFpEF were 0.771, 0.607, 0.615, 0.793, and 0.805, respectively. The AUCs for LVESWS, LVGLS, and LVESWS combined with LVGLS in predicting HFrEF were 0.943, 0.925, and 0.971, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves based on optimal cutoff values showed statistically significant differences in survival time between HFpEF and non-heart failure patients when grouped by RVGCS and age (all P<0.05), but no significant difference when grouped by infarct size ( P=0.400). Statistically significant differences in survival time were observed between HFrEF and non-heart failure patients when grouped by LVESWS and LVGLS (all P<0.001). Conclusion:CMR-derived LVESWS and biventricular strain parameters demonstrate significant predictive value for different types of heart failure after myocardial infarction and can serve as valuable imaging markers for heart failure management and risk stratification in patients with myocardial infarction.
