Myocardial Contrast Echocardiography Evaluation of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction to Predict MACEs in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Follow-up

Abstract

Background: Myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) is used to evaluate the accuracy of Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) for predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) at follow-up. Methods: The clinical data of 142 patients diagnosed with HFpEF in our hospital from January 2020 to January 2022 were retrospectively summarized and stratified into 77 cases (>1) in the CMD group and 65 cases (=1) in the non-CMD group based on the perfusion score index (PSI) of the 17 segments of the left ventricle examined by the admission MCE, and the perfusion parameters were measured at the same time, including the peak plateau intensity (A value), the curve slope of the curve rise (βvalue) and A×β values. At a median follow-up of 27 months till October 2023, MACEs were recorded mainly including heart failure exacerbation, revascularization, cardiac death, etc. Results: Increasing age, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease in the CMD group resulted in decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), increased plasma NT-B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS), decreased A-values and A×β-values, and an increased incidence of MACEs (P < 0.05). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that LVGLS (HR = 1.714, 95% CI = 1.289 - 2.279, P < 0.001) and A×β values (HR = 0.636, 95% CI = 0.417 to 0.969, P = 0.035) were independent predictors of MACEs in patients with HFpEF. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of LVGLS combined with A×β value for diagnosis of MACEs was 0.861 (95% CI=0.761~0.961, P<0.001), which was significantly higher than that of LVGLS or A×β value (P<0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the cumulative survival rate in CMD group was significantly lower than non-CMD group (logrank χ2 =6.626, P=0.010), with the most significant difference at 20 months of follow-up. Conclusion: MCE can evaluate CMD semi-quantitatively and quantitatively, LVGLS combined with A×β value has good performance in predicting the risk of developing MACEs in patients with HFpEF at 3 years of follow-up, and CMD can be used as an important non-invasive indicator for assessing clinical prognosis.