P1358 New insights into cardiac dysfunction assessed by left atrial function in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus
Authors: Ifuku M , Takahashi K , Iso T , Akimoto S , Hosono Y , Yazaki K , Yazawa R , Fukae T , Haruna H , Takubo N , Awata M , Nishida T , Ikeda F , Watada H , Shimizu T 
Published: January 2020

Abstract

BACKGROUND
There have been many reports of heart failure due to diabetic cardiomyopathy and decreased left ventricular (LV) function with increasing age in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Recently, although left atrial (LA) function has been occasionally reported to be a more useful prognostic indicator than LV function in acquired heart diseases, LA function in patients with T1DM has not yet been studied.

PURPOSE
To investigate LA dysfunction in patients with T1DM.

METHODS
Fifty patients with T1DM were recruited (age, 5–41 years). We excluded patients who had a history of heart disease, hypertension, and those taking cardioprotective agents. The patients and 50 age-matched controls were classified into 3 age groups (D1, C1, 5–14 years; D2, C2, 15–29 years; D3, C3, 30–41 years). The LA phasic function serving as the reservoir, conduit, and pump strains; the LA strain rate (SR) in the systole, early diastole, and late diastole; and the LV global longitudinal strain (LV-LS) as determined via 2-dimensional speckle tracking imaging were measured from the apical four- and two-chamber views. We also calculated the LA stiffness index as the ratio of E/e’ to the LA reservoir strain.

RESULTS
There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction in each age group. The LA reservoir strains in D2 and D3 were significantly lower than those in C2 (40.8 ± 5.7% vs. 47.2 ± 5.5%, p = 0.005) and C3 (39.2 ± 5.5% vs. 47.3 ± 5.7%, p = 0.004), respectively. The LA conduit strain in D2 was significantly lower than that in C2 (28.9 ± 5.8% vs. 35.0 ± 5.0%, p = 0.006). The LA pump strain and the three phases of LA SR were not significantly different among the age groups. The LA stiffness index in D3 increased significantly compared to that in N3 (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.13 ± 0.01, p &lt;0.001). The LV-LS in D2 and D3 was significantly lower than that in C2 (-15.7 ± 1.7% vs. -18.7 ± 2.1%, p &lt;0.001) and C3 (-15.3 ± 1.8% vs. -19.3 ± 2.0%, p &lt;0.001), respectively. The LA reservoir strain significantly correlated with LV-LS (r = -0.468, p &lt; 0.001). Both the LA reservoir strain and LV-LS in patients with T1DM decreased significantly (p = 0.028, p &lt; 0.042, respectively) and correlated with increasing age (r = -0.323, r = 0.286, respectively). The LV stiffness index did not correlate with age or LV-LS.

CONCLUSIONS
The LA reservoir strain might be as useful as LV-LS as an early marker of cardiac dysfunction in patients with T1DM. The correlation coefficient between the LA reservoir strain and LV-LS was not strong. Therefore, although LV-LS might affect the LA reservoir strain, it might represent other aspects of cardiac dysfunction. The increase of LA stiffness might represent the changes in LA wall properties and could be another useful indicator of cardiac dysfunction during long-term follow-ups, which is independent of LV-LS. Overall, these findings provide new insights into cardiac dysfunction in patients with T1DM.