Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Ischemic Heart Disease

Abstract

Ischemic heart disease is a growing cause of heart failure owing to the increasing prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. It is important to understand the concepts of myocardial stunning and hibernation so we as physicians can order appropriate testing on patients with ischemic heart disease, such as myocardial viability studies. Ventricular remodeling is associated with an elevated risk of death after myocardial infarction. The extent of myocardial viability determines the clinical outcome of patients after myocardial infarction. Multiple impactful clinical trials have changed the way we manage ischemic cardiomyopathy over the past few decades, and medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have improved outcomes in this patient population. Similarly, much has been reported on the effect of coronary artery bypass surgery on outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure, but further research studies are needed on the role of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Main article text

Introduction

With the increasing prevalence of risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD), such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, the contribution of ischemic heart disease as the primary cause of heart failure has increased. Data from the Framingham Heart Study showed the prevalence of coronary disease as the cause of heart failure increased by 41% per calendar decade in men and 25% in women [1]. For this reason, it is important for cardiologists to have a general awareness of the interplay between CAD and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction.

This review discusses the key elements of the pathophysiology of ischemia in LV dysfunction, modes of myocardial viability assessment, medical management, and the role of revascularization in ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Principles of Ischemic Heart Disease and the Relationship with Hibernation and Stunning

Stunned Myocardium

Prolonged ischemia can result in LV systolic dysfunction [2]. It is important to distinguish between the concepts of stunned and hibernating myocardium. Stunned myocardium occurs when there is total or near total coronary flow reduction for 5–15 minutes with a related abnormality in regional LV wall motion that after reperfusion typically lasts for hours to days [3, 4]. It is essentially a persistence of LV dysfunction after reperfusion with normal flow and despite the absence of irreversible damage [5]. The key points of this definition are a brief flow reduction with eventual reperfusion with LV dysfunction that persists for a short time. Dysfunction can remain for up to 6 hours after the ischemia has resolved, and includes demand ischemia such as that related to exercise [3].

Hibernating Myocardium

Hibernating myocardium represents resting LV systolic dysfunction due to reduced coronary blood flow that can be partially or completely reversed with revascularization [3, 6]. Decreased systolic function is thought to represent a mechanism to allow equilibrium between myocardial function and coronary blood flow – a concept referred to as perfusion-contraction matching [6–8]. In chronic hibernation there are structural changes that further allow the myocardium to adapt to reduced flow [3, 8]. Viability studies typically help to determine the difference between hibernating myocardium and myocardial infarction (MI) as opposed to stunned myocardium since resting flow is normal in stunned myocardium. In both hibernating and stunned myocardium, there is a conversion from free fatty acid metabolism to glucose metabolism – a concept that allows us to study viability using fluorine-18-labeled deoxyglucose (¹⁸FDG) PET [3, 7, 8].

A summary of the key concepts of hibernating and stunned myocardium is given in Table 1.

Table 1

Comparison between Myocardial Hibernation and Stunning.

	Stunning	Hibernation
Resting flow	Normal	Decreased
Conversion to glucose metabolism	Increased	Increased
Structural changes	No	Yes
Recovery following revascularization	Increased	Increased

Adapted from Canty et al. [3] and Redwood et al. [7].

Prognosis in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and Ventricular Remodeling

Ischemic cardiomyopathy is usually seen in patients with coronary stenosis of 75% or greater in one of the three major epicardial vessels in the setting of an ejection fraction of less than 40% with New York Heart Association class II or greater symptoms [9]. The presence of LV systolic dysfunction and CAD is known to have a poorer prognosis, which worsens as the degree of CAD increases. Coronary Artery Surgery Study registry data showed that the 12-year survival rate of patients with normal coronary arteries was 91%, compared with 74% for those with one-vessel disease, 59% for those with two-vessel disease, and 40% for those with three-vessel disease, and there was a significant effect of LV dysfunction in this population. The 12-year survival rate of patients with at least one-vessel CAD and ejection fraction less than 35% was 21%, compared with 73% in those with ejection fraction greater than 50% (P<0.0001) [10].

Ventricular Remodeling

Ventricular remodeling is an important response to myocardial ischemia and MI. In the initial phase after MI, scar formation occurs in the infarct zone along with thinning and elongation of the myocardial fibers. At this point LV volumes increase in what is likely an initial adaptive response. This is followed by a more maladaptive phase of myocyte hypertrophy in the noninfarct zone, at which point the LV cavity evolves from a more elliptical shape to a more spherical shape, further compromising mechanical function [11].

Greater degrees of ventricular remodeling have been shown to have an effect on clinical outcomes. White et al. [12] showed that patients after MI with greater degrees of LV remodeling signified by elevated end-systolic volume had an elevated risk of post-MI death. The VALIANT study showed that increased end-diastolic volume, lower ejection fraction, and increased infarct segment length after MI were related to an increase in the composite of death and hospitalization for heart failure [13].

Myocardial Viability

Myocardial stunning and myocardial hibernation are both potentially reversible states of LV dysfunction with revascularization. The extent to which regional LV wall motion will improve following revascularization depends on the viability of the region in question. There are multiple methods for assessing myocardial viability, and a brief discussion of each modality follows.

Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography

With low levels of dobutamine, viable myocardium may show increased contractility with recruitment of contractile reserve. With higher levels of dobutamine, ischemia becomes the predominant factor and wall motion worsens. This biphasic response to dobutamine is the best predictor of myocardial viability in dobutamine stress echocardiography and the one most predictive of recovery following revascularization [14, 15]. In this situation, infusion of low-dosage dobutamine (5–10 μg/kg/min) improves contractility initially, with further decline in contractility at higher dosages (up to 40 μg/kg/min) as greater degrees of ischemia occur.

Thallium Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography

Thallium-201 is injected at rest, and a perfusion abnormality is visualized that could be caused by fibrosis from a prior infarct or resting hypoperfusion in the setting of hibernation. Repeated images are typically taken at 24 hours, with viable myocardium showing redistribution in the region where the resting perfusion abnormality was previously visualized. A fixed defect on both rest and redistribution imaging suggests fibrosis without viability [16].

Technetium Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography with Nitroglycerin

Technetium-99m does not have the propensity of thallium-201 to redistribute in the myocardium. However, immediate administration of nitrates has been shown to increase resting flow in viable territories [17]. After resting technetium-99m imaging, a perfusion abnormality is recognized on resting images. The patient is then given nitroglycerin sublingually, and repeated imaging is performed, with viability noted by an improvement in the prior resting perfusion abnormality [16].

Positron Emission Tomography

As mentioned previously, hibernating myocardium changes its metabolism from free fatty acids to glucose; thus uptake of a glucose analog, ¹⁸FDG, by myocytes in an area of regional dysfunction would indicate viable myocardium. After a period of glucose loading, imaging with a traditional myocardial positron emission tomography (PET) tracer such as rubidium-82 is performed and a resting perfusion abnormality is identified. ¹⁸FDG PET is then performed, with viable myocardium representing tracer uptake in the region of the resting perfusion abnormality, hence showing a mismatch pattern [16].

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging typically detects viability by measuring the length of transmural scar by late gadolinium enhancement since areas of significant fibrosis will retain gadolinium. Viability is typically defined as a scar of 50% or less transmural thickness [18].

The role of myocardial viability has remained somewhat controversial owing in part to trials such as the STICH trial. The viability substudy of the STICH trial failed to show reduction in the primary end point, overall mortality, between those treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and those treated with medical therapy (P=0.21), although secondary end points showed a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (28 vs. 33%, P=0.05) [19]. However, this study has been criticized in that it did not randomize patients on the basis of viability (which could lead to selection bias) and it also used older methods of viability in dobutamine stress echocardiography and single-photon emission computed tomography as opposed to PET and magnetic resonance imaging, which may be more reliable at predicting outcomes. For example, the Ottawa-FIVE study noted a reduction in the composite end point of cardiac death, MI, and cardiac rehospitalization in patients with LV dysfunction receiving ¹⁸FDG PET–assisted management compared with standard care [20]. Nonetheless, further randomized trials are needed to test the effect of viability on clinical outcomes in a prospective fashion.

Medical Therapy for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

ACE Inhibitors

Numerous large randomized trials have evaluated the usefulness of ACE inhibitors in patients after MI. In ISIS-4 and GISSI-3, therapy with ACE inhibitors was started within 24 hours after an MI (with most events being ST-segment-elevation MI receiving fibrinolysis) and even though the duration of therapy was brief (1 month in ISIS-4 and 6 weeks in GISSI-3), there were demonstrable reductions in mortality and improvements in LV function for months after therapy was stopped [21, 22].

The SAVE trial determined whether long-term therapy with captopril reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with LV dysfunction after MI. Long-term captopril therapy over a mean 3.5-year period significantly increased overall survival rates (19% risk reduction, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3–32%, P=0.019), including a significant reduction in the risk of death due to cardiovascular causes (21% risk reduction, 95% CI 20–50%, P<0.001), and reduced risk of recurrent MI, development of severe heart failure, and congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization [23]. The TRACE trial with trandolapril and the AIRE trial with ramipril showed similar reductions in mortality and progression to severe heart failure [24, 25].

Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers

Two large clinical trials have compared the use of angiotensinII receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors after MI in patients with heart failure, with the OPTIMAAL trial comparing losartan with captopril and the VALIANT trial comparing valsartan with captopril. Neither trial showed a significant difference between the two classes with regard to all-cause mortality, with the VALIANT trial confirming noninferiority. There was less cough or angioedema in the group that received angiotensinII receptor blockers [26, 27].

Beta-Blockers

The CAPRICORN trial investigated the use of carvedilol in patients with acute MI and LV ejection fraction of 40% or less and showed reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and the rate of recurrent, nonfatal MIs [28].

The CHRISTMAS trial was designed to test the hypothesis that patients with LV dysfunction and viable myocardium would have a greater response in ejection fraction to carvedilol than patients with nonviable myocardium. The trial showed an overall increase in ejection fraction in patients given carvedilol compared with patients given placebo but did not show a statistically significant difference in ejection fraction increase between patients with nonviable myocardium and patients with viable myocardium. The study showed a linear trend between the number of viable segments and ejection fraction increase (P<0.0001) [29].

Aldosterone Antagonists

The EPHESUS trial studied the use of eplerenone in patients with an acute MI as well as LV dysfunction and heart failure. The trial showed significant reductions in overall death (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.96, P=0.008) and cardiovascular death (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.94, P=0.005) [30]. Because of the results of EPHESUS, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines have given a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for use of aldosterone antagonists after MI with ejection fraction less than 40% in patients receiving a therapeutic dose of an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker [31]. Despite this class I, level of evidence B guideline, physician adherence has been as low as 9.3% in eligible patients on hospital discharge [32].

Revascularization

Most of the data on outcomes of revascularization in patients with CAD and LV dysfunction come from trials on coronary artery bypass surgery. The largest clinical trial evaluating CABG in patients with LV dysfunction was the STICH trial, which tested the hypothesis that revascularization would improve outcomes compared with medical therapy alone. The primary outcome of death from any cause was not statistically significant in the CABG group compared with the group that received medical therapy alone (P=0.12) but there were lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (28 vs. 33%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.66–1.00, P=0.05) and of the combined outcome of death from any cause and hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (58 vs. 68%, HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64–0.85, P<0.001). However, 17% of the patients in the medical therapy arm underwent CABG, and with adjustment for crossover, the primary outcome was significant (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58–0.84, P<0.001) [33]. Post hoc analysis also showed that in patients with reasonable exercise capacity defined as a physical activity score greater than 55 and a 6-minute walk distance of 300m or more, mortality was significantly lower in the CABG group (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52–0.97, P=0.033) [34].

Trials regarding the long-term outcomes of revascularization with PCI in patients with chronic LV systolic dysfunction are lacking. A propensity-matched study of patients with multivessel disease and severe LV systolic dysfunction (election fraction of 35% or less) comparing patients who underwent PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus patients who underwent CABG showed a lower risk of long-term stroke, similar risk of long-term death, and a higher risk of MI and repeated revascularization [35]. A meta-analysis by Kunadian et al. [36] showed acceptable in-hospital mortality (1.8%) and long-term mortality (15.6%) in patients undergoing PCI with LV systolic dysfunction with similar outcomes to CABG. However, most of the studies included were performed either in the era before the use of drug-eluting stents or with first-generation drug-eluting stents, but drug-eluting stents and pharmacotherapy have improved since these trials were conducted. At the time writing, the REVIVED-BCIS2 randomized trial is enrolling participants to study the effect of PCI on survival in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, but results have not yet been released [37]. Perhaps at the conclusion of this trial we will have a better answer regarding clinical outcomes in this population.

Conclusion

LV dysfunction with ischemic heart disease is a prevalent problem. The pathophysiology, including myocardial stunning, hibernation, and viability, has been discussed here, and while there are numerous methods of assessing viability, more prospective trials are needed to assess clinical outcomes. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass surgery may be of benefit to patients with LV dysfunction and multivessel coronary disease, but more research is needed to assess outcomes in patients receiving PCI.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. KannelWB, HoK, ThornT. Changing epidemiological features of cardiac failure. Br Heart J 1994;72:S3.

2. MorrowDA, BodenWE. Chapter 54: Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. In: LibbyP, BonowR, MannDL, ZipesD, editors. Braunwald’s heart disease. A textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2015. p. 1184.

3. CantyJM, DunkerDJ. Chapter 49: Coronary Blood Flow and Ischemia. In: LibbyP, BonowR, MannDL, ZipesD, editors. Braunwald’s heart disease. a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012. pp. 1029–55.

4. HeyndrickxGR, MillardRW, McRitchieRJ, MarokoPR, VatnerSF. Regional myocardial functional and electrophysiological alterations after brief coronary artery occlusion in conscious dogs. J Clin Invest 1975;56(4):978–85.

5. BolliR. Myocardial ‘stunning’ in man. Circulation 1992;86(6):1671–91.

6. RahimtoolaSH. The hibernating myocardium in ischaemia and congestive heart failure. Eur Heart J 1993;14(Suppl A):22–6.

7. RedwoodSR, FerrariR, MarberMS. Myocardial hibernation and stunning: from physiological principles to clinical practice. Heart 1998;80(3):218–22.

8. RossJ. Myocardial perfusion-contraction matching. Implications for coronary heart disease and hibernation. Circulation 1991;83(3):1076–83.

9. O’ConnorCM, VelazquezEJ, GardnerLH, SmithPK, NewmanMF, LandolfoKP, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy on long-term outcome in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (a 25-year experience from the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Databank). Am J Cardiol 2002;90:101–7.

10. EmondM, MockMB, DavisKB, FisherLD, HolmesDR, ChaitmanBR, et al. Long-term survival of medically treated patients in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry. Circulation 1994;90:2645–57.

11. KonstamMA, KramerDG, PatelAR, MaronMS, UdelsonJE. Left ventricular remodeling in heart failure: current concepts in clinical significance and assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:98–108.

12. WhiteHD, NorrisRM, BrownMA, BrandtPW, WhitlockRM, WildCJ. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation 1987;76:44–51.

13. SolomonSD, SkaliH, AnavekarNS, BourgounM, BarvikS, GhaliJK, et al. Changes in ventricular size and function in patients treated with valsartan, captopril, or both after myocardial infarction. Circulation 2005;111:3411–9.

14. CornelJH, BaxJJ, ElhendyA, MaatAP, KimmanGJ, GeleijnseML, et al. Biphasic response to dobutamine predicts improvement of global left ventricular function after surgical revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease: implications of time course of recovery on diagnostic accuracy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31(5):1002–10.

15. RocchiG, PoldermansD, BaxJJ, RambaldiR, BoersmaE, ElhendyA, et al. Usefulness of the ejection fraction response to dobutamine infusion in predicting functional recovery after coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol 2000;85(12):1440–4.

16. SciagraR. SPECT and PET protocols for imaging myocardial viability. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 2014;7:9270.

17. FlotatsA, CarrioI, EstorchM, BernaL, CatafauAM, MartC, et al. Nitrate administration to enhance the detection of myocardial viability by technetium-99m tetrofosmin single-photon emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:767–73.

18. KimRJ, WuE, RafaelA, ChenEL, ParkerMA, SimonettiO, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1445–53.

19. BonowRO, MaurerG, LeeKL, HollyTA, BinkleyPF, Desvigne-NickensP, et al. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2011;364(17):1617–25.

20. AbrahamA, NicholG, WilliamsKA, GuoA, deKempRA, GarrardL, et al. 18F-FDG PET imaging of myocardial viability in an experienced center with access to 18F-FDG and integration with clinical management teams: the Ottawa-FIVE substudy of the PARR 2 trial. J Nucl Med 2010;51(4):567–74.

21. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. ISIS-4: a randomized factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1995;345:669–85.

22. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Soprawivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico. GISSI-3: effects of lisinopril and transdermal glyceryl trinitrate singly and together on 6-week mortality and ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1994;343(8906):1115–22.

23. PfefferMA, BraunwaldE, MoyéLA, BastaL, Brown EJJr, CuddyTE, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. N Engl J Med 1992;327(10):669–77.

24. KøberL, Torp-PedersenC, CarlsenJE, BaggerH, EliasenP, LyngborgK, et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995;333(25):1670–6.

25. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. Lancet 1993;342(8875):821–8.

26. DicksteinK, KjekshusJ, OPTIMAAL SteeringCommittee. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360(9355):752–60.

27. PfefferMA, McMurrayJJ, VelazquezEJ, RouleauJL, KøberL, MaggioniAP, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med 2003;349(20):1893–906.

28. DargieHJ. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet 2001;357(9266):1385–90.

29. ClelandJG, PennellDJ, RaySG, CoatsAJ, MacfarlanePW, MurrayGD, et al. Myocardial viability as a determinant of the ejection fraction response to carvedilol in patients with heart failure (CHRISTMAS trial): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:14–21.

30. PittB, RemmeW, ZannadF, NeatonJ, MartinezF, RonikerB, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;348(14):1309–21.

31. O’GaraPT, KushnerFG, AscheimDD, Casey DEJr, ChungMK, de LemosJA, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(4):e78–140.

32. RassiAN, CavenderMA, FonarowGC, CannonCP, HernandezAF, PetersonED, et al. Temporal trends and predictors in the use of aldosterone antagonists post-acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(1):35–40.

33. VelazquezEJ, LeeKL, DejaMA, JainA, SopkoG, MarchenkoA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2011;364(17):1607–16.

34. StewartRA, SzalewskaD, SheL, LeeKL, DraznerMH, LubiszewskaB, et al. Exercise capacity and mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction randomized to coronary artery bypass graft surgery or medical therapy: an analysis from the STICH trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure). JACC Heart Fail 2014;2(4):335–43.

35. BangaloreS, GuoY, SamadashviliZ, BleckerS, HannanEL. Revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction: everolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2016;133(22):2132–40.

36. KunadianV, PughA, ZamanAG, QiuW. Percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a review and meta-analysis of 19 clinical studies. Coron Artery Dis 2012;23(7):469–79.

37. PereraD, ClaytonT, PetrieMC, GreenwoodJP, O’KanePD, EvansR, et al. percutaneous revascularization for ischemic ventricular dysfunction: rationale and design of the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial: percutaneous coronary intervention for ischemic cardiomyopathy. JACC Heart Fail 2018;6(6):517–26.