Circulation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022 · 56 citations · 21 references
MedicineCardiologyClinical CardiologyExercise TestingPreventive CardiologyCardiac AssessmentCardiac Risk AssessmentCardiovascular AgingCardiovascular AssessmentCardiovascular DiseaseCardiovascular RiskAge-related Cardiac RiskCardiac Performance IndicesCardiovascular Risk MarkersFramingham Risk ScoreGlobal EfficiencyMyocardial Performance IndexSex-specific Reference ValuesSex-specific Risk Prediction
Background: Pressure-strain loop analyses is a noninvasive technique capable of evaluating myocardial work. Reference values are needed to benchmark these myocardial work indices for clinical practice. Methods: Healthy participants from a general population study were used to establish reference values for global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work (GWW), and global work efficiency (GWE) measured by pressure-strain loop analyses. The relation to age and sex was examined. We furthermore examined the proportion of abnormal work indices according to low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk by the Framingham risk score. Results: The healthy sample consisted of 1827 participants (median age, 45 years; 39% men). Lower reference values were GWI, 1576 mm Hg%; GCW, 1708 mm Hg%; and GWE, 93.0% and upper reference value for GWW was 159 mm Hg%. Women exhibited significantly higher GWI, GCW, and GWW and lower GWE. Sex significantly modified the association between all indices and age ( P for interaction: 0.001 for GWI, 0.009 for GCW, 0.003 for GWW, and 0.009 for GWE). For men, only GCW increased with age, whereas the other indices did not change with age. For women, GCW increased linearly with increasing age, whereas GWI, GWW, and GWE changed in a curvilinear fashion with age such that GWI increased in younger participants, GWW increased in elderly, and GWE declined concordantly. Abnormalities in myocardial work indices became more frequent with increasing Framingham risk score category (abnormal GWI: 2% versus 4% versus 5%, P =0.001; abnormal GCW: 2% versus 3% versus 4%, P =0.006; abnormal GWW: 3% versus 6% versus 11%, P <0.001; abnormal GWE: 3% versus 4% versus 11%, P <0.001). Conclusions: Myocardial work indices differ between sexes and change with age in a sex-dependent manner. Accordingly, we established age- and sex-specific reference values from a general population sample. Abnormal work indices become more frequent with higher clinical risk. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02993172.
21
General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care
Ralph B. D’Agostino, Ramachandran S. Vasan, Michael Pencina et al. · Circulation · 2008 · 7.5K citations · Full text
Medicine, Cardiology, Risk Analysis +16
Tor Biering‐Sørensen, Sofie Biering‐Sørensen, Flemming Javier Olsen et al. · Circulation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2017 · 399 citations · Full text
Jonathan Chan, Natalie Edwards, Bijoy K. Khandheria et al. · European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2018 · 358 citations
Kristoffer Russell, Morten Eriksen, Lars Aaberge et al. · American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2013 · 343 citations