Evaluation of Left Ventricular Relaxation and Filling Pressures in Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Comparison between Invasive Hemodynamics and Two‐Dimensional Speckle Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is usually associated with marked diastolic dysfunction, characterized by impaired myocardial relaxation and increased myocardial stiffness. The noninvasive evaluation of diastolic function in these patients remains a challenge since usual methods have shown a modest correlation with invasive measurements of left ventricular (LV) relaxation and filling pressures. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 44 patients with obstructive HCM who underwent cardiac catheterization and echocardiography performed within 48 hours. Standard echocardiographic diastolic parameters and systolic and diastolic myocardial mechanics (including longitudinal and circumferential strain [S] and strain rate [Sr]), LV rotation, and early reverse rotation rate (fraction of early apical reverse rotation [FEARR]) were correlated with diastolic hemodynamic indices. Estimated LA pressure by echo and the LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) or the LV pre-A pressure did not correlate. Longitudinal strain was low and circumferential strain was abnormally higher than normal. FEARR and negative dp/dt inversely correlated (R =-0.57, P = 0.0001), and early diastolic Sr to systolic Sr ratio (SrE/SrS) correlated with the LVEDP (r = 0.61, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, a SrE to SrS ratio ≥ 0.79 had a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 75% for predicting elevated LVEDP (≥ 15 mmHg). Average circumferential strain rate during atrial contraction and LV pre-A pressure (r =-0.62, P < 0.001) inversely correlated. CONCLUSIONS: FEARR is decreased in HCM and appears to be a good measure of diastolic dysfunction. Myocardial mechanics can be used to assess LV relaxation and filling pressures in patients with obstructive HCM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".