
==== Front
100887595
Eur J Heart Fail
Eur J Heart Fail
European journal of heart failure
1388-9842
1879-0844

39143936
10.1002/ejhf.3425
ems198062
Article
Precision prediction of heart failure events in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and mildly reduced ejection fraction using multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Hammersley Daniel J. PhD MRCP abc*
Mukhopadhyay Srinjay MBBS bc*
Chen Xiuyu PhD d
Jones Richard E. PhD bcef
Ragavan Aaraby MBBS bc
Javed Saad MBBS bc
Rajabali Husein MBBS c
Androulakis Emmanuel MD a
Curran Lara MBBS bc
Mach Lukas MD bc
Khalique Zohya MD bc
Baruah Resham PhD c
Guha Kaushik MD g
Gregson John PhD h
Zhao Shihua PhD MD d
De Marvao Antonio PhD aijk
Tayal Upasana PhD bc
Lota Amrit S. PhD bc
Ware James S. PhD MRCP bck
Pennell Dudley J. MD bc
Prasad Sanjay K. MD bcᶲ
Halliday Brian P. PhD FRCP bc**ᶲ
a https://ror.org/01n0k5m85 King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
b National Heart and Lung Institute, https://ror.org/041kmwe10 Imperial College London , UK
c https://ror.org/00cv4n034 Royal Brompton & https://ror.org/04fwa4t58 Harefield Hospital , https://ror.org/00j161312 Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust , UK
d https://ror.org/0590dnz19 Fuwai Hospital , https://ror.org/00t7sjs72 State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease , National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, https://ror.org/02drdmm93 Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College , Beijing, China
e https://ror.org/024zgsn52 Essex Cardiothoracic Centre , Basildon, UK
f https://ror.org/0009t4v78 Anglia Ruskin University , Chelmsford, UK
g Portsmouth Hospital University Trust UK
h https://ror.org/00a0jsq62 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
i British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine and Sciences, https://ror.org/0220mzb33 King's College London , UK
j Department of Women and Children's Health, https://ror.org/0220mzb33 King's College London , United Kingdom
k MRC Laboratory of Medical Sciences, https://ror.org/041kmwe10 Imperial College London , UK
** Address for correspondence: Dr Brian P Halliday, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College, Royal Brompton Hospital Campus, Sydney Street, London, UK, SW3 6NP, b.halliday@imperial.ac.uk. Twitter: bp_halliday. Phone: (+44) 207 352 8121 Ext 82928
* Joint first authors

ᶲ Joint senior authors

13 8 2024
15 8 2024
20 9 2024
10.1002/ejhf.3425https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a BY 4.0 International license.
Aims

To assess whether left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS), derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), is associated with (a) progressive heart failure [HF], and (b) sudden cardiac death [SCD] in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (DCMmrEF).

Methods and results

We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of patients with DCM and LVEF ≥40% assessed by CMR, including feature-tracking to assess LV GLS and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Long-term adjudicated follow-up included (a) HF hospitalisation, left ventricular assist device implantation or HF death, and (b) SCD or aborted SCD [aSCD]. Of 355 patients with DCMmrEF (median age 54 years [interquartile range 43-64], 216 men [60.8%], median LVEF 49% [46-54]) followed up for a median 7.8 years (5.2-9.4), 32 patients (9%) experienced HF events and 19 (5%) died suddenly or experienced aSCD. LV GLS was associated with HF events in a multivariable model when considered as either a continuous (per % HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.21, p=0.045) or dichotomised variable (LV GLS >-15.4%: HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.30-5.94, p=0.008). LGE presence was not associated with HF events (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.73-3.01, p=0.270). Conversely, LV GLS was not associated with SCD/aSCD (per % HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95-1.22, p=0.257), whereas LGE presence was (HR 3.58, 95% CI 1.39-9.23, p=0.008). LVEF was neither associated with HF events nor SCD/aSCD.

Conclusion

Multi-parametric CMR has utility for precision prognostic stratification of patients with DCMmrEF. LV GLS stratifies risk of progressive heart failure, while LGE stratifies SCD risk.

Graphical Abstract In this study, 355 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were characterised using cardiovascular magnetic resonance, including feature-tracking to calculate left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Over long-term follow-up, LV GLS >-15.4% was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of major heart failure events, whereas the presence LGE was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) or aborted SCD. CMR = cardiovascular magnetic resonance; DCM = dilated cardiomyopathy; HF = heart failure; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; LV GLS = left ventricular global longitudinal strain; SCD = sudden cardiac death.

Mild dilated cardiomyopathy
heart failure
sudden cardiac death
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a major cause of heart failure (HF) globally. DCM-associated morbidity and mortality principally results from pump failure or ventricular arrhythmias.1 Heterogeneous aetiology and variable response to therapy remain barriers to more precise risk prediction across the spectrum of phenotypic severity. Many patients with DCM have mildly reduced ejection fraction (DCMmrEF), either due to early disease detection or improvement in cardiac function from more severe phenotypes.2 Whilst those with DCMmrEF typically have fewer symptoms and generally good long-term outcomes, a subset will go on to progressive HF or succumb to sudden cardiac death (SCD).3,4 We have previously identified late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) as an important determinant of SCD in this population.5 However, the incidence and predictors of progressive HF in patients with DCMmrEF remain unknown. It is also unclear whether the risk profile of patients with early disease is equivalent to those with improved cardiac function, recognising their comparable level of mild cardiac dysfunction. Many patients with DCMmrEF are asymptomatic. Use of HF medical therapy in asymptomatic individuals with mild systolic dysfunction remains a topic of debate due to lack of evidence from clinical trials. Additional markers of HF risk are desirable.

Myocardial deformation, measured by left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS), offers prognostic utility beyond left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with non-ischaemic HF with significant systolic dysfunction.6 LV GLS may be a more sensitive measure of mild contractile dysfunction than LVEF and thus may have a role in identifying patients at risk of progressive heart failure.7 However, an association between strain and ventricular arrhythmia has additionally been reported.8 LV GLS is also associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in healthy population cohorts and relatives of patients with DCM.9–11 The prognostic value of strain has not been specifically studied in patients with DCMmrEF. Thus, we sought to evaluate whether LV GLS, derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature-tracking, and LGE could be used to predict (a) progressive HF and (b) SCD in patients with DCMmrEF, to determine whether routine measurement of strain is worthwhile in this population for prognostic purposes. We hypothesised that LV GLS would predict incident HF events among patients with DCMmrEF, and when combined with LGE sequences, that multiparametric CMR could be used to predict both HF events and SCD. Notably, there is limited long-term outcome data available describing the natural history of patients with DCMmrEF. Hence the identification of novel prognostic markers in this population could aid in identifying the subset at highest risk of deterioration who may benefit from enhanced disease surveillance and early treatment escalation.

Methods

Study population

Consecutive patients referred for a CMR between 2009-2017 from our clinical service and a network of surrounding hospitals were prospectively enrolled into the Royal Brompton Hospital Cardiovascular Research Centre (RBH CRC) Biobank. The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee, Reference 19/SC/0257). All participants provided written consent. The inclusion criterion was DCM with mildly reduced LVEF (DCMmrEF), defined as increased indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDVi) and LVEF that was ≥40% but lower than age- and sex-adjusted nomograms at the point of enrolment.12 Exclusion criteria were significant ischaemic heart disease (IHD) (defined as stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery, inducible ischaemia on functional testing or prior coronary revascularisation), adverse loading conditions (uncontrolled hypertension or severe primary valve disease), congenital heart disease, active myocarditis, or an alternative cardiomyopathy. Patients with DCMmrEF were further classified as either (a) index DCMmrEF, where patients had not previously had a LVEF recorded as <40%; or (b) recovered DCMmrEF in cases where patients had had a previously recorded LVEF <40% which had then improved to LVEF ≥40% on the study enrolment CMR.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance

All patients underwent a CMR scan at 1.5 Tesla (Sonata/Avanto, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Breath-hold steady-state free precession sequences were performed to produce long and short-axis cine images. Gadopentetate dimeglumine or gadobutrol (0.1mmol/Kg) was injected intravenously and an inversion recovery gradient echo sequence undertaken to acquire the LGE images at 10 minutes. Left and right ventricular volumes and LV mass were measured using CMRtools (Cardiovascular Imaging Solutions, London, UK) and indexed to body surface area (BSA). Cine images were analysed for 2D LV GLS using Medis Qstrain (v2.0) and QMass (v8.1) on Medis Suite v3.1 (Medis Medical Imaging Systems, Leiden, Netherlands) by a single expert operator blinded to clinical outcomes. This involved semi-automatic delineation of the LV endocardial borders in the three long-axis views (3-chamber, 4-chamber and 2-chamber) with manual adjustment. LV contours were tracked via the Qstrain package and GLS calculated automatically as the average of the 3-long axis peak strain values derived from strain curves (Supplementary Figure 1). LGE presence was assessed by 2 independent expert CMR readers, with a third adjudicating cases of disagreement. LGE was considered present when seen in both long- and short-axis planes, in two orthogonal views, extending beyond the LV/RV insertion points.

Follow-up and endpoints

Clinical follow up data was obtained from primary care records, hospital medical records and postal questionnaires sent to patients. Updated follow-up data was acquired approximately every 2-3 years after enrolment and curated by the study team into a centralised database. Survival status was ascertained from the National Health Service Spine. Death certificates were obtained from the UK General Register Office and autopsy reports were retrieved from either Coroners’ Offices or hospitals. Follow-up duration was measured from CMR date and truncated at 10 years. All events were adjudicated by a panel of experienced cardiologists who were blinded to all CMR data, using medical information, death certificates, autopsy reports and ICD reports. All potential arrhythmic events were reviewed by a cardiologist with expertise in implantable cardiac devices; ICD electrograms were reviewed where necessary. Patients were censored at the time of first event. The primary endpoint was progressive HF, defined as a composite of HF hospitalisation, left ventricular assist device implantation or HF death. HF hospitalisation was defined as a hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of HF lasting at least 24 hours, in which the patient reported worsening symptoms of HF and had objective evidence of worsening or new HF, and received initiation/intensification of HF-specific treatment. The secondary endpoint was a composite of SCD or aborted SCD (aSCD). Aborted SCD was defined as either an appropriate ICD shock for a ventricular arrhythmia, or a non-fatal episode of ventricular fibrillation (VF) or spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) causing hemodynamic compromise and requiring cardioversion (supplementary methods for full endpoint definitions).

Statistical analysis

Patient characteristics are presented as frequencies (%) for categorical variables and median (interquartile range, IQR) for continuous variables. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables. Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. Ordinal values were compared using Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Correlation between measures of LV structure and function was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Cumulative incidence curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. The association between patient characteristics and the primary endpoint was examined using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard modelling. A multivariable model was built for the primary endpoint using a backward stepwise selection method of candidate variables with an entry criterion of p<0.05. The basis for this method of variable selection for the multivariable model related to the lack of other studies available in the literature describing predictors of HF events in patients with DCMmrEF, hence a stepwise selection represented the most data-driven approach. The authors considered that an alternative method of a priori variable selection using variables conventionally associated with adverse HF outcomes in more severe DCM phenotypes may not be applicable in this population of patients with mild disease. The optimal LV GLS threshold was derived from Youden index in receiver operating characteristic analyses. Model performance was assessed using Harrel’s C-Statistic. A 2-tailed p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were conducted on Rstudio (v4.2.2): survival and survminer packages were used for survival analysis; figures were generated using ggplot package.

Results

Cohort

Of 696 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of DCM, 355 patients met inclusion criteria for DCMmrEF and were included in the study. Of these, 214 (60.3%) had index DCMmrEF and 141 (39.7%) had recovered DCMmrEF. Significant IHD was excluded by invasive coronary angiogram in 213 patients (60.0%), CTCA in 30 patients (8.5%), functional test (stress perfusion CMR, nuclear scan or stress echocardiogram) in 54 patients (15.2%). The remaining 59 patients had a very low clinical probability of IHD and did not undergo dedicated investigation to formally exclude: of these, 30 patients were aged ≤40 years, none had prior angina, and none required revascularisation or experienced an acute coronary syndrome during follow-up.

A higher proportion of the cohort were men (216 patients [60.8%]) and most were Caucasian (312 patients [87.9%]). The median age was 54 years (interquartile range [IQR] 43-64). The median LVEF was 49% (46-54), the median LV GLS was –18.1% (–20.0 to – 15.1) and 32% of the cohort had LGE on CMR (Table 1). There was no difference in the age, sex, ethnicity or NYHA class between index and recovered DCMmrEF subgroups. Patients with index DCMmrEF had marginally higher LVEF and less abnormal LV GLS compared to recovered DCMmrEF, and a greater proportion of patients with recovered DCMmrEF were treated with HF drug therapies compared to patients with index DCMmrEF (Supplementary Table 1). LV GLS was moderately correlated with LVEF (r = -0.57) and weakly correlated with LV volumes (Supplementary Figure 2).

Primary endpoint

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years (IQR 5.2-9.4), 32 patients (9%) met the primary endpoint of progressive HF. This included 19/214 (8.9%) with index DCMmrEF and 13/141 (9.2%) with recovered DCMmrEF; there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of HF events between patients with index and recovered DCMmrEF (p=0.710, Figure 1). In total, 28 patients met the endpoint due to HF hospitalisation, four due to HF death and none from LVAD implantation. On univariable analysis of all patients with DCMmrEF, LV GLS was associated with the primary endpoint when considered as a continuous variable (per % hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.26, p=0.004), whereas LVEF was not (per 10% HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33-1.22, p=0.172). On multivariable analysis, LV GLS remained associated with the primary endpoint (per % HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.21, p=0.045), alongside LAVi (per 10ml/m2 HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p=0.005) and NYHA class III/IV (HR 3.77, 95% CI 1.49-9.57, p=0.005) (Supplementary Table 2). The optimal threshold for dichotomising LV GLS was -15.4% (Supplementary Figure 3). Patients with LV GLS > - 15.4% had a higher cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint than those with LV GLS ≤ -15.4% (log rank p<0.001) (Figure 2). The 5-year HF event rate was 13.5% for patients with LV GLS > -15.4%, compared to a 5-year HF event rate of just 3.2% in patients with LV GLS ≤ -15.4%. On univariable analysis, LV GLS > -15.4% was associated with the primary endpoint (HR 3.45, 95% CI 1.72-6.92, p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, GLS > -15.4% remained associated with the primary endpoint (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.30-5.94, p=0.008) (Table 2). The C-statistic for the multivariable model containing LV GLS > -15.4%, NYHA class and LAVi was 0.764; when LV GLS was removed from this model the C-statistic dropped to 0.707. LGE presence was not associated with the primary endpoint (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.73-3.01, p=0.270). Addition of LGE to the model containing LV GLS > -15.4%, NYHA class and LAVi did not improve model precision (C-statistic remained 0.764).

Secondary endpoint

In total, 19 patients (5.4%) met the SCD composite endpoint during follow up, including 12/214 (5.6%) with index DCMmrEF and 7/141 (5.0%) with recovered DCMmrEF. This was due to appropriate shocks from ICDs implanted during follow up in nine patients, resuscitated VF/VT cardiac arrests requiring cardioversion/defibrillation in six patients who had not had ICDs implanted, and SCD in four patients. There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of SCD/aSCD between patients with index and recovered DCMmrEF (log rank p=0.890, Supplementary Figure 4). In total, 50 (14.1%) patients with DCMmrEF underwent ICD/CRT-D implantation during follow up, of whom 29 (13.6%) had index DCMmrEF and 21 (14.9%) had recovered DCMmrEF. Six patients had ICD/CRT-D devices implanted for secondary prevention (five following resuscitated cardiac arrest occurring during follow-up, one following resuscitated cardiac arrest occurring prior to enrolment with device implantation after enrolment). LV GLS was not associated with SCD/aSCD on univariable analysis (per % HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95-1.22, p=0.257). There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of SCD/aSCD when LV GLS was dichotomised (log rank p=0.190, Figure 3). LVEF was also not associated with SCD/aSCD (per 10% HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44-2.29, p=0.997). The only variable associated with SCD/aSCD on univariable analysis was LGE presence (LGE+) (HR 3.58, 95% CI 1.39-9.23, p=0.008) (Supplementary Table 3). Accordingly, patients with LGE+ DCMmrEF had a higher cumulative incidence of SCD/aSCD than those with no LGE (LGE-) (log rank p=0.005) (Supplementary Figure 5). The 5-year SCD/aSCD event rate was 3.7% for patients with LGE+ DCMmrEF, compared to 1.3% for LGE- DCMmrEF.

Predictive value of global longitudinal strain and late gadolinium enhancement in index versus recovered dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction

LV GLS > -15.4% was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of progressive heart failure in the subgroup with index DCMmrEF (log rank p<0.001); a similar trend was observed in the subgroup with recovered DCMmrEF, although this did not meet statistical significance, likely due to the smaller subgroup sample size and lower number of events (Supplementary Figure 6).

Discussion

Left ventricular global longitudinal strain is associated with progressive heart failure in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction

The major finding from this study was that LV GLS was associated with the primary endpoint of progressive HF in this cohort of patients with DCMmrEF after accounting for other important covariates, and regardless of the trajectory of LVEF. Classifying patients using a LV GLS threshold of -15.4% identified a subset of patients with DCMmrEF with a near 3-fold enhanced risk of progressive HF. The inclusion of LV GLS in a multivariable model enabled more accurate prediction of HF events. By contrast, LVEF was not associated with HF events in this population. These data suggest that routine strain analysis using feature-tracking may be a worthwhile add-on to standard CMR analysis in this population to inform prognosis. We also demonstrate that NYHA class and LAVi are other important predictors of HF events in this patient group, as is observed in larger cohorts of patients with more severe phenotypes.13

Left ventricular global longitudinal strain is not associated with sudden cardiac death

In contrast to the primary endpoint, LV GLS was not associated with the secondary endpoint of SCD or aSCD. The only parameter that predicted SCD/aSCD was the presence of LGE, in keeping with findings from a separate earlier cohort study undertaken at our institution.5 This finding is consistent with observation elsewhere that myocardial fibrosis, as detected by LGE, represents the major arrhythmic substrate for ventricular arrhythmia in DCM. The biological mechanisms that underpin this association relate to fixed and/or functional electrical conduction block occurring at the border between normal myocardium and regions of fibrosis, which propagate re-entry circuits leading to ventricular arrhythmia.14,15

Clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance for precision risk prediction in dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction

The evidence base for treating patients with heart failure with mildly reduced LVEF largely exists in those with symptoms/elevated NT-proBNP.16,17 Many patients with DCMmrEF however do not have symptoms (including 57% of this cohort), and may have normal natriuretic peptides. The data presented in this paper raises the question of whether LV GLS, derived from feature-tracking CMR, could be used as an imaging biomarker to identify those at highest risk of progressive HF that may obtain most benefit from early initiation and aggressive uptitration of drug therapies; further data is required to test this at scale. It is additionally recognised that some patients with DCMmrEF are at significant risk of SCD yet remain ineligible for primary prevention ICD implantation based on LVEF.14,18 ICDs may be considered in patients with DCM and LVEF >35% in the presence of additional risk factors, such as high risk genotypes.18 The data presented in this paper suggest a potential further role of CMR to enhance ICD decision making among such patients. As LGE predicted SCD but not progressive HF, and LV GLS predicted progressive HF but not SCD, it may be feasible to combine these metrics to identify patients with higher arrhythmic risk (LGE+) without concomitantly enhanced competing risk of progressive HF (LV GLS ≤ - 15.4%), potentially identifying a subgroup of patients most likely to derive a survival benefit from their implantation. The prognostic value of LV GLS in patients with DCMmrEF is incremental to conventional measures of cardiac structure and function, such as LVEF. This finding differs from our observation that left atrial strain did not confer additive prognostic information beyond LA volumes and LA emptying fraction.19 Importantly, patients with DCMmrEF represent a neglected subpopulation for whom there is limited data to aid in prognostication and guide therapy. We propose that studies such as this are of particular value to build further evidence to inform future clinical guidelines to improve management of these patients. Whilst external validation of the prognostic value of LV GLS is required, it is important to note that this technique does not require any additional CMR sequences or image acquisition and measurement is partially automated, easy to learn and quick to perform. LV GLS may therefore represent a cost-effective adjunct to current risk stratification tools in this population.

What this study adds to the literature

The clinical determinants of progressive heart failure have not previously been reported among patients with DCM with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Our results support a role for feature-tracking CMR analysis in this population to enhance precision prognostication. The finding that LGE was the sole determinant of SCD/aSCD validates previous work from our group in an earlier cohort and emphasises the robustness of LGE for arrhythmic risk stratification in this population.5

Limitations

Patients in this study were enrolled from a single UK referral centre and its hospital network and the study inclusion criteria required a clinical referral by a physician for a CMR, introducing a possible referral bias. It is possible that some events were missed in patients undergoing clinical follow up at hospitals outside our own, despite extensive attempts made to retrieve all relevant clinical follow up information for subjects in this study. The cohort was predominantly Caucasian and male and there was a low burden of comorbidity. These features of the cohort may limit generalisability of our findings. It is also unknown whether the findings observed are equally applicable to patients with different dominant pathological drivers of DCM or indeed patients with different underlying genetic substrate. Vendor-specific differences in LV GLS measurement exist and further comparative data is required to test the association and prognostic threshold derived from this cohort using different CMR feature-tracking analysis software.20 LV GLS can also be obtained from echocardiography using speckle-tracking, and further work should focus on whether a similar association exists from strain parameters acquired from different imaging modalities. Cardiac biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were not routinely measured at the point of enrolment in this cohort and hence it remains unknown whether their inclusion in multivariable models may interact with the association between LV GLS and the primary endpoint. Exploring whether LV GLS and LGE are associated with natriuretic peptide levels may would also have been of interest but was not possible. T1 data was not obtained as part of the CMR protocol and may have further enhanced risk stratification in the cohort. Finally, the low number of events is a limitation of this study and precluded further analysis in the subgroups of patients with index and recovered DCMmrEF. Future work will focus on validating our findings in larger multi-centre external cohorts and integrating blood biomarkers and genetic data with the aim of further enhancing risk prediction in this population.

Conclusion

Among patients with DCM with mildly reduced ejection fraction, LV GLS stratifies the risk of progressive heart failure and LGE stratifies the risk of SCD, regardless of LVEF trajectory. By contrast, LVEF did not predict either HF events or SCD. The results of this study support routine CMR evaluation of patients with DCM with mildly reduced ejection fraction to identify those at greatest risk of future pump failure or sudden death among this highly heterogenous patient population.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary information

Acknowledgements

We thank the RBH CRC nurses and support staff, led by Geraldine Sloane.

Funding

This work was supported by National Heart and Lung Institute Foundation grants awarded to SKP, DJH, REJ, UT, BPH and JSW, and British Society for Heart Failure Research Fellowship and British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Training Fellowship (FS/CRTF/23/24444) awarded to LM. Additionally, the study was supported by Rosetrees Trust, Alexander Jansons Myocarditis UK Foundation, a BHF Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship awarded to BPH (FS/ICRF/21/26019) and MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship awarded to UT (MRC MR/W023830/1). This work was supported additionally supported by The British Heart Foundation [RE/18/4/34215; SP/17/11/32885]; Royston Centre for Cardiomyopathy Research; Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust [21JTA]; Medical Research Council (UK); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); Royal Brompton Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit; NIHR Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre.

The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.

Figure 1 Cumulative incidence of major heart failure events classified by index dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction versus recovered dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

HF = heart failure; DCMmrEF = dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Figure 2 Cumulative incidence of the heart failure events among patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction classified by left ventricular global longitudinal strain -15.4%.

HF = heart failure; LV GLS = left ventricular global longitudinal strain

Figure 3 Cumulative incidence of the sudden cardiac death or aborted sudden cardiac death among patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction classified by left ventricular global longitudinal strain -15.4%.

aSCD = aborted sudden cardiac death; LV GLS = left ventricular global longitudinal strain; SCD = sudden cardiac death.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction classified by median left ventricular global longitudinal strain

	Overall (N=355)	LV GLS ≤
-18.1% (N=178)	LV GLS >
-18.1% (N=177)	P-value	
Demographics					
Age	54 (43-64)	52 (42-63)	56 (43-65)	0.050	
Female	139 (39.2%)	74 (41.6%)	65 (36.7%)	0.408	
Caucasian	312 (87.9%)	157 (88.2%)	155 (87.6%)	0.984	
Past Medical History					
Hypertension	106 (29.9%)	47 (26.4%)	59 (33.3%)	0.19	
Diabetes mellitus	30 (8.5%)	9 (5.1%)	21 (11.9%)	0.034	
Current smoker	33 (9.3%)	15 (8.4%)	18 (10.2%)	0.319	
History of Atrial
Fibrillation	57 (16.1%)	22 (12.4%)	35 (19.8%)	0.086	
History of Chemotherapy	18 (5.1%)	3 (1.7%)	15 (8.5%)	0.006	
Family History of SCD	62 (17.5%)	38 (21.3%)	24 (13.6%)	0.097	
Family History of DCM	69 (19.4%)	44 (24.7%)	25 (14.1%)	0.027	
NYHA Class					
I	201 (56.6%)	103 (57.9%)	98 (55.4%)	0.299	
II	115 (32.4%)	60 (33.7%)	55 (31.1%)	
III & IV	39 (11%)	15 (8.4%)	24 (13.6%)	
Medication					
ACEi/ARB	280 (78.9%)	137 (77.0%)	143 (80.8%)	0.447	
Beta Blocker	217 (61.1%)	110 (61.8%)	107 (60.5%)	0.576	
MRA	80 (22.5%)	30 (16.9%)	50 (28.2%)	0.016	
CMR Characteristics					
LVEDVi, ml/m2	106 (90-120)	105 (97-117)	108 (96-121)	0.387	
LVESVi, ml/m2	54 (45-62)	50 (43-57)	57 (49-65)	<0.001	
LVEF, %	49 (46-54)	53 (49-56)	47 (43-50)	<0.001	
RVEDVi, ml/m2	84 (72-99)	87 (74-101)	82 (70-95)	0.009	
RVESVi, ml/m2	36 (27-45)	37 (27-46)	35 (36-44)	0.210	
RVEF, %	58 (53-65)	58 (53-64)	58 (51-65)	0.596	
LAVi, ml/m2	51 (42-62)	51 (42-61)	52 (42-64)	0.418	
LGE presence	112 (31.5%)	54 (30.3%)	58 (32.8%)	0.077	
Data presented as median (IQR) or n (%). ACEi = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker; DCM = dilated cardiomyopathy; LAVI = left atrial volume index; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement; LVEDVi = left ventricular end-diastolic volume index; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESVi = left ventricular end-systolic volume index; MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; NYHA = New York Heart Association; RVEDVi = right ventricular end-diastolic volume index; RVEF = right ventricular ejection fraction; RVESVi = right ventricular end-systolic volume index; SCD = sudden cardiac death.

Table 2 Univariable and multivariable association between baseline and cardiovascular magnetic resonance characteristics of all patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with mildly reduced ejection fraction and the primary endpoint. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain is included as a dichotomised variable.

	Univariable	Multivariable	
Characteristic	HR (95% CI)	P	HR (95%CI)	P	
Age, per 10 years	1.39 (1.08-1.81)	0.012		
Male	0.78 (0.39-1.58)	0.496	
Hypertension	1.62 (0.80-3.29)	0.179	
Diabetes mellitus	2.76 (1.13-6.71)	0.025	
Current smoker	0.92 (0.28-3.01)	0.886	
History of AF	1.89 (0.86-4.15)	0.112	
NYHA Class II	1.85 (0.80-4.28)	0.148	
NYHA Class III/IV	5.37 (2.28-12.7)	<0.001	3.87 (1.55-9.70)	0.004	
LVEDVi, per 10ml/m2	1.01 (1.00-1.03)	0.121		
LVESVi, per 10ml/m2	1.02 (1.00-1.05)	0.066	
LVEF, per 10%	0.64 (0.33-1.22)	0.172	
LV GLS > -15.4%	3.45 (1.72-6.92)	<0.001	2.70 (1.30-5.94)	0.008	
RVEDVi, per 10ml/m2	1.09 (0.92-1.28)	0.341		
RVESVi, per 10ml/m2	1.22 (0.98-1.52)	0.080	
RVEF, per 10%	0.77 (0.51-1.14)	0.189	
LAVi, per 10ml/m2	1.12 (1.07-1.18)	<0.001	1.06 (1.01-1.12)	0.025	
LGE presence	1.49 (0.73-3.01)	0.270		
Data presented as hazard ratio (95% confidence interval). ACEi = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; AF = atrial fibrillation; ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker; CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio; LAVi = left atrial maximum volume index; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement; LVEDVi = indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESVi = indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume; LV GLS = left ventricular global longitudinal strain; MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; NYHA = New York Heart Association; RVEDVi = indexed right ventricular end-diastolic volume; RVESVi = indexed right ventricular end-systolic volume; RVEF = right ventricular ejection fraction.

Conflict of interest

RB has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Vifor and Medtronic. KG has received honoraria from Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Servier Laboratories, a previous unrestricted educational grant from Biotronik, and previous travel assistance from Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Biotronik and Boston Scientific. JSW has acted as a consultant for MyoKardia, Foresite Labs, Pfizer, Health Lumen and Tenaya Therapeutics. DJP has received research funding from Siemens. BPH has received honoraria from Astra Zeneca. The other authors have nothing to declare.
==== Refs
1 Felker GM Thompson RE Hare JM Hruban RH Clemetson DE Howard DL Underlying Causes and Long-Term Survival in Patients with Initially Unexplained Cardiomyopathy N Engl J Med 2000 342 1077 1084 10760308
2 McDonagh TA Metra M Adamo M Gardner RS Baumbach A Böhm M 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure Eur Heart J 2021 42 3599 3726 34447992
3 Gigli M Stolfo D Merlo M Barbati G Ramani F Brun F Insights into mildly dilated cardiomyopathy: temporal evolution and long-term prognosis Methods and results Eur J Heart Fail 2017 19 531 539 27813212
4 Hammersley DJ Jones RE Owen R Mach L Lota AS Khalique Z Phenotype, outcomes and natural history of early-stage non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy Eur J Heart Fail 2023 10.1002/ejhf.3037 Published onlineOctober 11, 2023
5 Halliday BP Gulati A Ali A Guha K Newsome S Arzanauskaite M Association between midwall late gadolinium enhancement and sudden cardiac death in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and mild and moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction Circulation 2017 135 2106 2115 28351901
6 Romano S Judd RM Kim RJ Kim HW Klem I Heitner JF Feature-Tracking Global Longitudinal Strain Predicts Death in a Multicenter Population of Patients With Ischemic and Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Incremental to Ejection Fraction and Late Gadolinium Enhancement JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018 11 1419 1429 29361479
7 Potter E Marwick TH Assessment of Left Ventricular Function by Echocardiography: The Case for Routinely Adding Global Longitudinal Strain to Ejection Fraction JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018 11 260 274 29413646
8 Biering-Sørensen T Knappe D Pouleur AC Claggett B Wang PJ Moss AJ Regional Longitudinal Deformation Improves Prediction of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A MADIT-CRT Substudy (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization The Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017 10 1 11
9 Biering-Sørensen T Biering-Sørensen SR Olsen FJ Sengeløv M Jørgensen PG Mogelvang R Global Longitudinal Strain by Echocardiography Predicts Long-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in a Low-Risk General Population: The Copenhagen City Heart Study Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017 10 1 11
10 Verdonschot JAJ Merken JJ Brunner-La Rocca HP Hazebroek MR Eurlings CGMJ Thijssen E Value of Speckle Tracking–Based Deformation Analysis in Screening Relatives of Patients With Asymptomatic Dilated Cardiomyopathy JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020 13 549 558 31202754
11 Russo C Jin Z Elkind MSV Rundek T Homma S Sacco RL Prevalence and prognostic value of subclinical left ventricular systolic dysfunction by global longitudinal strain in a community-based cohort Eur J Heart Fail 2014 16 1301 1309 25211239
12 Maceira AM Prasad SK Khan M Pennell DJ Normalized left ventricular systolic and diastolic function by steady state free precession cardiovascular magnetic resonance J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Off J Soc Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2006 8 417 426
13 Gulati A Ismail TF Jabbour A Ismail NA Morarji K Ali A Clinical utility and prognostic value of left atrial volume assessment by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy Eur J Heart Fail 2013 15 660 670 23475781
14 Hammersley DJ Halliday BP Sudden Cardiac Death Prediction in Non-ischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: a Multiparametric and Dynamic Approach Curr Cardiol Rep 2020 22 85 32648053
15 Wu KC Sudden Cardiac Death Substrate Imaged by Magnetic Resonance Imaging: From Investigational Tool to Clinical Applications Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017 10 1 14
16 Solomon SD McMurray JJV Anand IS Ge J Lam CSP Maggioni AP Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction N Engl J Med 2019 381 1609 1620 31475794
17 Solomon SD McMurray JJV Claggett B de Boer RA DeMets D Hernandez AF Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction N Engl J Med 2022 387 1089 1098 36027570
18 Arbelo E Protonotarios A Gimeno JR Arbustini E Barriales-Villa R Basso C 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies Eur Heart J 2023 44 3503 3626 37622657
19 Hammersley DJ Mukhopadhyay S Chen X Cheng L Jones RE Mach L Comparative prognostic importance of measures of left atrial structure and function in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2024 10.1093/ehjci/jeae080 Published onlineMarch 16, 2024
20 Heinke R Pathan F Le M D’Angelo T Winau L Arendt C Towards standardized postprocessing of global longitudinal strain by feature tracking - OptiStrain CMR-FT study BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019 19 1 11 30606129
