Echocardiography-derived hemodynamic forces (HDF) allow calculation of intraventricular pressure gradients from routine transthoracic echocardiographic images. The evolution of HDF after cardiac... Show moreEchocardiography-derived hemodynamic forces (HDF) allow calculation of intraventricular pressure gradients from routine transthoracic echocardiographic images. The evolution of HDF after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been investigated in large cohorts. The aim was to assess HDF in patients with heart failure implanted with CRT versus healthy controls. HDF were assessed before and 6 months after CRT. The following HDF parameters were calculated: (1) apical-basal strength, (2) lateral-septal strength, (3) the ratio of lateral-septal to apical-basal strength ratio, and (4) the force vector angle (1 and 2 representing the magnitude of HDF, 3 and 4 representing the orientation of HDF). In the propulsive phase of systole, the apical-basal impulse and the systolic force vector angle were measured. A total of 197 patients were included (age 64 ± 11 years, 62% male), with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS duration ≥130 ms and left bundle branch block. The magnitude of HDF was significantly lower and the orientation was significantly worse in patients with heart failure versus healthy controls. Immediately after CRT implantation, the apical-basal impulse and systolic force vector angle were significantly increased. Six months after CRT, improvement of apical-basal strength, lateral-septal to apical-basal strength ratio and the force vector angle occurred. When CRT was deactivated at 6 months, the increase in the magnitude of apical-basal HDF remained unchanged while the systolic force vector angle worsened significantly. In conclusion, HDF in CRT recipients reflect the acute effect of CRT and the effect of left ventricular reverse remodeling on intraventricular pressure gradients. Whether HDF analysis provides incremental value over established echocardiographic parameters, remains to be determined. Show less
OBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial... Show moreOBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-defined coronary artery disease (CAD).BACKGROUND QFR estimates FFR solely based on cine contrast images acquired during invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Head-to-head studies comparing QFR with noninvasive MPI are lacking.METHODS A total of 208 (624 vessels) patients underwent technetium -99m tetrofosmin SPECT and [15O]H2O PET imaging before ICA in conjunction with FFR measurements. ICA was obtained without using a dedicated QFR acquisition protocol, and QFR computation was attempted in all vessels interrogated by FFR (552 vessels).RESULTS QFR computation succeeded in 286 (52%) vessels. QFR correlated well with invasive FFR overall (R = 0.79; p < 0.001) and in the subset of vessels with an intermediate (30% to 90%) diameter stenosis (R = 0.76; p < 0.001). Overall, per-vessel analysis demonstrated QFR to exhibit a superior sensitivity (70%) in comparison with SPECT (29%; p < 0.001), whereas it was similar to PET (75%; p = 1.000). Specificity of QFR (93%) was higher than PET (79%; p < 0.001) and not different from SPECT (96%; p = 1.000). As such, the accuracy of QFR (88%) was superior to both SPECT (82%; p = 0.010) and PET (78%; p = 0.004). Lastly, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of QFR, in the overall sample (0.94) and among vessels with an intermediate lesion (0.90) was higher than SPECT (0.63 and 0.61; p < 0.001 for both) and PET (0.82; p < 0.001 and 0.77; p = 0.002), respectively.CONCLUSIONS In this head-to-head comparative study, QFR exhibited a higher diagnostic value for detecting FFRdefined significant CAD compared with perfusion imaging by SPECT or PET. (J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2020;13:1976-85) (c) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
