Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hemodynamic forces in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Authors: Panichella G , Del Franco A , Milazzo A , Zocchi C , Garofalo M , Ragagnin M , Fanizzi A I , Zampieri M , Pieroni M , Pedrizzetti G , Emdin M , Olivotto I 
Published: January 2025

Background

Hemodynamic force (HDF) analysis allows non-invasive measurement of intraventricular pressure gradients, portraying cyclic spatial-temporal interaction between blood and tissues. Impaired HDFs have been implicated in early detecting of adverse cardiac remodelling and treatment response in various cardiovascular disorders, providing insights into cardiac physiology not offered by traditional cardiovascular imaging (1). Mainly explored in heart failure, HDF analysis has not been previously applied to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

Purpose

To investigate differences in systo-diastolic function in HCM patients compared to healthy controls using HDF analysis.

Methods

Forty patients with HCM diagnosis (20 obstructive and 20 non-obstructive) were retrospectively evaluated in comparison with 22 healthy controls. Left ventricular (LV) HDFs were derived from routine transthoracic apical 4-, 2- and 3-chamber views using a dedicated software. Apical-basal HDF curves were generated, where positive deflections represent forces directed from the LV apex to the base, whilst negative ones are directed toward the apex. Amplitude and timing parameters were derived, the latter indexed to total cardiac cycle duration.

Results

Table 1 shows the demographic, clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of HCM compared to controls. Patients with HCM were older, had a slower heart rate due to treatment with beta-blockers, and showed hypercontractility, as expressed by higher LV ejection fraction. Compared to controls, HCM patients showed reduced LV longitudinal force, i.e. the force during the whole cardiac cycle (4.17% [2.36-5.52] vs. 6.01% [4.73-7.78], p=0.002), shorter time interval to systolic peak (0.15 [0.12-0.16] vs. 0.19 [0.17-0.20], p &lt;0.001), and shorter duration of LV impulse (0.29 [0.27-0.32] vs. 0.34 [0.32-0.37], p &lt;0.001) (Figure 1). However, no differences in terms of systolic force peak (p=0.283) or LV impulse intensity (p=0.689) were detected. During the transition between systole and diastole, LV suction (i.e. the interval including late systolic deceleration and early diastolic suction) was significantly longer (0.26 [0.22-0.29] vs. 0.23 [0.21-0.25], p=0.023) but less pronounced (6.30% [4.56-8.44] vs. 8.72% [6.71-12.59], p=0.005), likely reflecting a relaxation impairment from the very beginning of diastole. Such impairment was maintained during early diastolic filling, where the amplitude of the positive deceleration flow force was severely reduced in HCM compared to controls (2.98% [1.98-4.58] vs. 7.11% [4.55-8.72], p &lt;0.001).

Conclusions

HDF analysis in HCM patients revealed unique systolic and diastolic changes reflecting faster LV contraction during systole and slower and weaker LV forces during diastole. This analysis deepens our understanding of HCM mechanic abnormalities and may help assess response to innovative treatment options.

Table 1

Figure 1