Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0248862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248862

Left ventricular systolic function impairment in children after balloon valvuloplasty for congenital aortic stenosis assessed by 2D speckle tracking echocardiography

Krzysztof Godlewski 1,#, Paweł Dryżek 2,‡, Elżbieta Sadurska 3,‡, Bożena Werner 4,*,#
Editor: Yiru Guo5
PMCID: PMC8084170  PMID: 33914748

Abstract

Aims

The aim of the study was to evaluate left ventricular (LV) remodeling and systolic function using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiographic (2D STE) imaging in children at a long-term (more than 36 months, 107.5±57.8 months) after balloon valvuloplasty for aortic stenosis (BAV).

Methods and results

40 patients (mean age 9,68 years, 75% male) after BAV and 62 control subjects matched to the age and heart rate were prospectively evaluated. The 2D STE assessment of LV longitudinal and circumferential strain and strain rate was performed. Left ventricular eccentric hypertrophy (LVEH) was diagnosed in 75% of patients in the study group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was normal in all patients. In study group, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global longitudinal strain rate (GLSr) were significantly lower compared with the controls: GLS (-19.7±2.22% vs. -22.3±1.5%, P< 0.001), GLSr (-0.89±0.15/s vs. -1.04 ±0.12/s, P < 0.001). Regional (basal, middle and apical segments) strain and strain rate were also lower compared with control group. Global circumferential strain (GCS), global circumferential strain rate (GCSr) as well as regional (basal, middle and apical segments) strain and strain rate were normal. Multivariable logistic regression analysis included: instantaneous peak systolic Doppler gradient across aortic valve (PGmax), grade of aortic regurgitation (AR), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular relative wall thickness (LVRWT), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd), peak systolic mitral annular velocity of the septal and lateral corner (S’spt, S’lat), LVEF before BAV and time after BAV and showed that the only predictor of reduced GLS was LV eccentric hypertrophy [odds ratio 6.9; (95% CI: 1.37–12.5), P = 0.045].

Conclusion

Patients at long-term observation after BAV present the subclinical LV systolic impairment, which is associated with the presence of its remodeling. Longitudinal deformation is the most sensitive marker of LV systolic impairment in this group of patients.

Introduction

In many centres, percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) is the accepted first-line treatment for congenital aortic stenosis (AS) in the paediatric population. A reduction in pressure gradient between the left ventricle (LV) and the aorta (Ao) is an expected and favourable outcome of this procedure. Dilatation of the stenosed valve, however, quite commonly produces varying degrees of aortic regurgitation (AR). In some of these patients, the clinical problem is the gradual progression of AR, which eventually becomes the main reason for surgical intervention [1–3]. While often producing few symptoms or none at all, residual AS and AR may still adversely affect the left ventricle and lead to its dysfunction and decompensation.

The study by Capoulade et al. [4] presenting the relationship between a reduced ejection fraction and higher mortality in adult patients with aortic valve stenosis, indicates that decreased EF is a marker of advanced stage of the disease. It is therefore justified to employ more sensitive methods of assessing myocardial function, as these would enable the detection of subclinical changes that reflect incipient abnormalities and would allow to prevent advanced or even irreversible changes from developing. Novel echocardiographic techniques, including two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D STE) for assessing myocardial function, enable early detection of myocardial disease [5,6].

The aim of our study was to evaluate LV remodelling and systolic function using 2D STE in children during long-term follow-up after BAV for AS.

Methods

The study was approved by. The study was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the Medical University of Warsaw (KB/45/2014) and followed the rules and principles of the Helsinki Declaration. All parents or legal guardians as well as patients aged 16 years and older gave their informed written consent.

Study population

A total of 40 post-BAV patients at the mean age of 9.68±4.73 years were included in our study. Only patients who had undergone BAV more than 3 years before were included, with the mean duration of the post-BAV period being 107.5±57.8 months (range: 37 to 216 months). Patients were excluded from this group if they had a history of aortic valve surgery and/or had other forms of congenital heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, metabolic disorders or genetic diseases. The control group consisted of 62 healthy children (volunteers) aged 3 to 18.03 years with the mean age of 9.28 years matched to the age, gender, body weight, body surface area and heart rate of the study group.

The control group did not differ significantly from the interventional group in terms of age, body weight, body surface area and heart rate (Table 1).

Table 1. Clinical characteristic of the study population, conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiographic measurements of left ventricle.

Parameter Patients (n = 40) Controls (n = 62) P value
Age [years] 9.7±4.73 9.3±4.04 0.65
Gender ♂/♀, n 30/10 36/26 0.62
Body mass, [kg] 35.8±19.88 34.4±17.24 0.70
BSA [m 2] 1.1±0.44 1.1±0.37 0.99
HR [bpm] 83.1±12.13 79.7±11.92 0.16
IVSd [cm] 0.70±0.16 0.59±0.11 <0.001
LVPWd [cm] 0.69±0.17 0.55±0.1 <0.001
LVEDd [cm] 4.6±0.73 4.1±0.52 <0.001
LVEDd Z–score 2.3±2.06 0.6±0.71 <0.001
LVMI [g/m2,7] 50.0±18.43 29.5±6.31 <0.001
LVRWT 0.30±0.05 0.27±0.02 0.003
LVEF [%] 64.1±2.68 63.4±1.75 0.14
S’ spt [cm/s] 7.0±1.21 7.5±1.04 0.06
S’ lat [cm/s] 8.1±2.12 9.4±1.7 0.001
Open in a new tab

Data expressed as mean±SD or number.

IVSd, interventricular septum end-diastolic diameter; LVPWd, left ventricular posterior wall end-diastolic diameter; LV, left ventricle; LVEDd, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; LVRWT, left ventricular relative wall thickness; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; S’spt, S’lat, peak systolic mitral annular velocity of the septal and lateral corner.

Echocardiographic assessment

The LV and its function were assessed in the post-BAV patients and compared with the control group. All of the echocardiograms were performed following of the recomendations of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography using the iE33 Matrix Ultrasound System (Philips, Koninklijke, Netherlands) with 3–8 MHz and 5 MHz sector probes [7,8].

Conventional and tissue Doppler measurements

LV end-diastolic diameters (LVEDd) and LV wall thickness were measured from the parasternal long-axis 2D view. LV mass (LVM) was calculated according to the Devereux formula [9]. The left ventricular mass index (LVMI) was determined according to the guidelines described by de Simone [10]. LVMI exceeding 95 centile, (value 38.6 g/m 2,7) and LV relative wall thickness (LVRWT) <0.44 was considered to be LV eccentric hypertrophy.

By using continuous-wave Doppler (CW-Doppler) and color Doppler an assessment of the LV-Ao instantaneous peak systolic Doppler gradient (PGmax) and the grade AR (on a 4-point grading scale) was made.

Pulsed-wave TDI (PW-TDI) was used to measure peak systolic velocities of the septal (S’spt), and lateral (S’lat) corner of the mitral annulus in apical four-chamber view (4CH). LVEF was calculated by the Simpson method from apical 4- and 2CH views.

Two-Dimensional Speckle Tracking Analyses (2D STE)

The 2D STE analysis was performed by one physician (K.G.) using software (QLab version 8.1, Philips) on standard 2D greyscale images from apical 4CH, 3CH, and 2CH views for LV longitudinal strain (LS) and longitudinal strain rate (LSr). PSAX view at the basal, middle and apical levels was used to assess LV circumferential strain (CS) and circumferential strain rate (CSr). Each strain was measured at end-systole at the moment of aortic valve closure. Frame rate ranged from 70 to 80 frames/s. Sedative drugs were not used. The endocardial border was manually traced at end-systole and the width of the region of interest adjusted to include the whole myocardial wall. Then, the software automatically tracked and accepted segments of good tracking quality, automatically rejecting poorly tracked segments. Tracking quality was visually checked, corrected when needed, and only good quality images were accepted by the operator. Strain values of LV were assessed automatically in 18 segments and then averaged manually by the operator as mean value of each strain and strain rate and presented as regional (basal, middle and apical segments), global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS) as well as global longitudinal strain rate (GLSr) and global circumferential strain rate (GCSr). Segment names and their locations specified by the American and European Society of Echocardiography were used [7].

There are no established normal ranges of left ventricular strain using 2D STE for the paediatric population utilizing commercially available QLab software, Philips. The cut-off values of abnormal GLS, GCS, GLSr and GCSr were calculated from the control group as the mean value - 2SD.

The less negative GLS, GCS, GLSr and GCSr values means the lower systolic function.

For intra- and interobserver variability, echocardiographic measurements in 12 randomly selected patients were repeated. The measurements were performed on the same cardiac cycle. Intra- and interobserver variability was assessed using intraclass correlation and absolute difference between the investigators’ measurements divided by the average value of both measurements expressed as percentage.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were presented as the mean±SD and compared with Student’s t-test. Categorical variables were presented as percentages and compared with two-tailed Fisher’s exact test. The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test was used for multiple group comparison. The correlations between continuous variables were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and between categorical variables with the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. A P value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of abnormal GLS in the study group. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated. The statistical calculations were performed using Statistica software, version 13.1 (Tibco, Palo Alto, CA) and PQStat software, version 1.8.0. (StatSoft).

Results

Clinical data

The clinical characteristics of the study group is given in Table 1 and Fig 1. In the study group, BAV had been conducted during the neonatal period in 26 patients, during infancy in 12 patients, and beyond the age of 1 year in 2 patients.

Fig 1. Characteristic of the study group in regards to the occurrence of PGmax and AS.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations–see in Table 2.

Conventional echocardiography and TDI

Assessment of LV hypertrophy and geometry

Left ventricular eccentric hypertrophy (LVEH) was identified in 75% of the patients in the study group (Table 1). The subgroup of patients with LVEH significantly differed from the non-LVEH subgroup in terms of mean PGmax (P = 0.02), severity of AR (P = 0.02) and LVEDd Z-score (P<0.001). In terms of the other parameters given in Table 2, including LVEF, no significant differences between these subgroups were observed. The presence of LVEH significantly correlated with PGmax (r = 0.36, P = 0.02), severity of AR (r = 0.65, P<0.001) and LVEDd Z-score (r = 0.52, P<0.001).

Table 2. Comparison of selected parameters in subgroups: With and without left ventricular eccentric hypertrophy.
Parameter Group with LVEH (n = 30) Group without LVEH (n = 10) P value
Age at the time of the echocardiographic examination [months] 110.9±54 126.8±71.5 0.46
LVEF [%] (Simpson’s method) 64.4±2.53 63.1±3.03 0.20
S’ spt [cm/s] 7.1±1.3 6.8±0.91 0.57
S’ lat [cm/s] 8.2±2.36 7.7±1.15 0.47
PGmax [mmHg] 35.9±11.9 26.1±7.78 0.02
AR grade ≥ 2/AR grade < 2 90%/10% 20%/80% 0.02
LVEDd Z–score 2.9±1.98 0.4±0.8 <0.001
LVRWT 0.3±0.06 0.3±0.03 0.83
Time after BAV [months] 101.2±57.7 126.7±71.42 0.26
LVEF before BAV [%] 68.9±11.89 67.7±9.29 0.76
Open in a new tab

Data expressed as mean±SD or percentage.

AR, aortic regurgitation; PGmax, instantaneous peak systolic Doppler gradient across aortic valve; other abbreviations–see in Table 1.

Assessment of left ventricular systolic function

LVEF was within normal limits in all the study patients and did not differ significantly compared with the control group (P = 0.2). The values of s’ spt and s’ lat were lower in the study group but the difference was statistically significant only for s’ lat (P = 0.001) (Table 1).

2D STE Analysis

Speckle tracking was possible in 99.5% of the segments in the apical views (2-, 3- and 4-CH) and in 98.7% of the segments in the short axis LV views (at the levels of the basal, middle and apical parts of the LV).

The lower limits of normal GLS, GCS, GLSr and GCSr were established in the manner stated in the methodology. The value greater than –19.31%, –19.93%, –0.8/s, and –1.01/s means reduced GLS, GCS, GLSr and GCSr respectively.

Analysis of longitudinal strain

We found LV systolic function to be less in the group of post-BAV patients compared with the control group. GLS and strain in the basal, middle and apical segments were significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group (Table 3). Reduced GLS (higher than –19.31%) was found in 19 patients (47.5%).

Table 3. Strain and strain rate values of left ventricle.
Parameter Patients (n = 40) Control group (n = 62) P value
GLS [%] -19.7±2.22 -22.3±1.5 <0.001
LS—basal segments [%] -16.4±2.24 -19.0±1.85 <0.001
LS—middle segments [%] -19.7±2.59 -22.3±1.82 <0.001
LS—apical segments [%] -22.9±3.34 -25.7±2.01 <0.001
GCS [%] -22.8±1.18 -22.7±1.37 0.66
CS—basal segments [%] -20.1±1.76 -20.0±1.94 0.90
CS—middle segments [%] -22.9±1.37 -22.9±2.51 0.94
CS—apical segments [%] -25.4±2.18 -25.1±2.06 0.44
GLSr [1/s] -0.89±0.15 -1.04±0.12 <0.001
LSr—basal segments [1/s] -0.78±0.19 -0.98±0.13 <0.001
LSr—middle segments [1/s] -0.90±0.14 -1.03±0.12 <0.001
LSr—apical segments [1/s] -1.01±0.21 -1.10±0.17 0.005
GCSr [1/s] -1.39±0.16 -1.39±0.19 0.98
CSr—basal segments [1/s] -1.34±0.2 -1.28±0.23 0.19
CSr—middle segments [1/s] -1.29±0.22 -1.34±0.26 0.32
CSr—apical segments [1/s] -1.53±0.27 -1.54±0.26 0.88
Open in a new tab

Data expressed as mean+SD.

GLS, global longitudinal strain; LS, longitudinal strain; GCS, global circumferential strain; CS, circumferential strain; GLSr, global longitudinal strain rate; LSr, longitudinal strain rate; GCSr, global circumferential strain rate; CSr, circumferential strain rate.

GLS in the study group showed a significantly positive correlation with the presence of LVEH (r = 0.5, P<0.001), PGmax (r = 0.46, P = 0.002), LVMI (r = 0.46, P<0.001), LV RWT (r = 0.2, P = 0.003) and LVEDd (r = 0.37, P<0.001) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. The correlation of GLS with the existence of LVEH.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

GLS, global longitudinal strain; LVEH, left ventricular eccentric hypertrophy.

The correlation between GLS measurements and the presence of grade ≥2 AR was borderline significant (r = 0.29, P = 0.05). No correlation was found between GLS and the time since BAV, the BSA value or the study patient age. Also, no correlation was found between GLS and the following parameters of systolic function assessed by two-dimensional echocardiography and TDI: pre-BAV LVEF, LVEF at most recent scan, s’ spt and s’ lat.

The values of s’ spt and s’ lat did not differ significantly between the patients with reduced GLS and the patients with normal GLS (P = 0.81 and P = 0.82, respectively) (Table 4).

Table 4. Risk factors for left ventricular systolic dysfunction defined as GLS > - 19.31% and GLSr > - 0.8/s in the study group.
Parameter Patients with reduced GLS (n = 19) Patients with normal GLS (n = 21) P value
with LVEH/without LVEH 89.5%/10.5% 61.9%/38.1% 0.04
PGmax [mmHg] 37.8±13.31 29.5±8.63 0.02
AR grade < 2/AR grade ≥ 2 21.1%/78.9% 33.3%/66.7% 0.38
LVMI [g/m2.7] 49.7±15.32 50.1±21.24 0.94
LVRWT 0.31±0.06 0.29±0.04 0.14
LVEDd Z–score 2.2±1.87 2.3±2.27 0.85
LVEF [%] 64.1±2.82 64.0±2.26 0.90
S’ spt [cm/s] 7.0±1.29 7.0±1.17 0.95
S’ lat [cm/s] 8.2±2.04 8.0±2.24 0.84
LVEF before BAV [%] 71.7±10.98 65.9±10.9 0.10
Time after BAV [months] 113.3±56.25 102.4±66.86 0.58
Parameter Patients with reduced GLSr (n = 14) Patients with normal GLSr (n = 26) P value
with LVEH/without LVEH 100%/0% 61.5%/38.5% 0.007
PGmax [mmHg] 43.9±7.11 27.8±11.53 <0.001
AR grade < 2/AR grade ≥ 2 78.6%/21.4% 69.2%/30.8% 0.52
LVMI [g/m2.7] 52.5±19.52 48.6±16.61 0.53
LVRWT 0.32±0.04 0.29±0.06 0.05
LVEDd Z-score 2.3±2.17 2.2±1.91 0.89
LVEF [%] 64.5±2.4 63.8±3.2 0.44
S’ spt [cm/s] 6.7±1.3 7.2±1.01 0.29
S’ lat [cm/s] 8.0±2.15 8.1±2.15 0.89
LVEF before BAV [%] 69.2±11.74 68.3±10.52 0.81
Time after BAV [months] 122.9±63.34 99.3±56.95 0.25
Open in a new tab

Data expressed as mean±SD or percentage. Abbreviations–see in Table 1.

In the subgroup of patients with LVEH, GLS and strain in basal, middle and apical segments were significantly lower compared with the non-LVEH subgroup (Table 5).

Table 5. Strain and strain rate in subgroups: With and without left ventricular eccentric hypertrophy.
Parametr Patients with LVEH (n = 30) Patients without LVEH (n = 10) P value
GLS [%] -19.1±1.93 -21.6±1.99 <0.001
LS—basal segments [%] -15.7±2.08 -18.1±1.63 0.001
LS—middle segments [%] -19.3±2.15 -21.4±3.3 0.04
LS—apical segments [%] -22.1±3.29 -25.4±2.07 0.004
GCS [%] -22.6±1.23 -23.3±0.84 0.09
CS—basal segments [%] -19.9±1.55 -20.7±2.23 0.17
CS—middle segments [%] -22.8±1.27 -23.3±1.63 0.30
CS—apical segments [%] -25.2±2.4 -26.0±1.09 0.33
GLSr [1/s] -0.85±0.15 -1.01±0.11 0.004
LSr—basal segments [1/s] -0.73±0.19 -0.91±0.17 0.014
LSr—middle segments [1/s] -0.87±0.13 -0.99±0.13 0.021
LSr—apical segments [1/s] -0.96±0.21 -1.13±0.13 0.02
GCSr [1/s] -1.39±0.16 -1.39±0.16 0.91
CSr—basal segments [1/s] -1.32±0.2 -1.40±0.2 0.29
CSr—middle segments [1/s] -1.28±0.21 -1.32±0.25 0.70
CSr—apical segments [1/s] -1.56±0.2 -1.43±0.35 0.20
Open in a new tab

Data expressed as mean±SD. Abbreviations–see in Table 3.

We found no differences between the type of predominant valvular defect (stenosis/regurgitation/mixed nature) and the change in GLS (P = 0.84).

Analysis of circumferential strain

GCS and strain in the basal, middle and apical segments did not differ significantly compared with the control group (Table 3). None of the patients in the study group had a GCS reduction of higher than –19.93%.

No significant correlations were observed between GCS and the presence of LVEH, the presence of grade ≥ 2 AR, PGmax, LVMI, LV RWT, LVEF at most recent scan, pre-BAV LVEF, patient age, or time since BAV.

In the subgroup of patients with LVEH, GCS and strain in the basal and middle segments were lower compared with the non-LVEH subgroup. In the apical segments, on the other hand, circumferential strain was higher compared with the non-LVEH subgroup. However, these differences were not statistically significant (Table 5).

The percentage of patients with LVEH was significantly higher in the subgroup with reduced GLS compared to the subgroup with normal GLS. Also PGmax was significantly higher in the subgroup patients with reduced GLS compared to the subgroup with normal GLS (Table 4). No significant differences were demonstrated for the other parameters listed in Table 4.

To identify predictors of reduced GLS the variables: present of eccentric hypertrophy, PGmax, AR grade, LVMI, LVRWT, LVEDd, LVEF, s’ spt, s’ lat, LVEF before BAV, time after BAV were all entered into logistic regression analysis. This analysis confirmed only the association with LVEH (OR 6.9; 95% CI: 1.37–12.5; P = 0.045).

Analysis of strain rate

GLSr and strain rate in the basal, middle and apical segments were significantly lower in the group of post-BAV patients compared with the children in the control group (Table 3). A reduced GLSr (higher than –0.8/s) was found in 14 patients (35%).

GLSr in the study group showed a significantly positive correlation with the presence of LVEH (r = 0.34, P = 0.02), PGmax (r = 0.53, P<0.001) and LV RWT (r = 0.31, P = 0.04). No significant correlations were found between GLSr and: LVMI, pre-BAV LVEF, LVEF at most recent scan, BSA, presence of grade ≥2 AR, time since BAV, patient age, s’ spt and s’ lat.

In the subgroup of patients with LVEH, GLSr and strain rate in the basal, middle and apical segments were significantly lower compared with the non-LVEH subgroup (Table 5). All the patients with reduced GLSr were found to have LVEH. The values of PGmax and LV RWT were significantly higher in patients with reduced GLSr compared to the subgroup with normal GLSr (P<0.001 and P = 0.048, respectively) (Table 4).

None of the patients in the study group had a GCSr reduction. GCSr and strain rate in the basal, middle and apical segments did not differ significantly between the study group and the control group (Table 3) and between the subgroup of patients with LVEH and the non-LVEH subgroup. No significant correlations were observed between GCSr and the factors listed in the Table 4.

Intra- and interobserver variability

Intraobserver variability of GLS, GCS, GLSr and GCRs was 4.3; 5.6; 6.0; 5.6%, respectively.

The corresponding interobserver values were 12.4; 10.2; 16.0; 12.6%, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for intraobserver variability regarding GLS, GCS, GLSr and GCRs were 0.98(95% CI 0.98–0.99); 0.95(95% CI 0.93–0.96); 0.99(95% CI 0.98–0.99); 0.96(95% CI 0.95–0.97), respectively. The corresponding ICC values for interobserver variability were 0.85(95% CI 0.81–0.89); 0.81(95% CI 0.74–0.85); 0.9(95% CI 0.88–0.93); 0.82(95% CI 0.76–0.86), respectively.

Discussion

Information on myocardial dysfunction in children undergoing BAV for AS is limited. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess left ventricle using 2D STE in children during long-term follow-up after BAV. There are only two studies evaluating the left ventricle by STE in children after BAV for AS. The first one concerns intermediate- term results in 37 children and the second one concerns results in 27 infants shortly after BAV procedure. Our study has shown LV longitudinal systolic function impairment and its dependence on LV hypertrophy as a result of both increased pre- and afterload in this group of patients. We have also demonstrated reduced global and regional longitudinal strain and longitudinal strain rate with normal values of circumferential strain and circumferential strain rate.

2D STE allows to precisely assess myocardial function. It is an accurate and reproducible method that is independent of the angle of incidence of the ultrasonic beam, allows to differentiate between active and passive strain, and allows a complete assessment of regional and global function in three directions. In contrast, TDI is a method that is dependent on the angle of incidence, susceptible to noise and less accurate, and it allows to assess only a limited fragment of tissue [11,12].

When subjected to an increased preload caused by AR [13], and/or an increased afterload caused by residual systolic pressure gradient across the aortic valve [14–16] the left ventricle undergoes remodelling (eccentric hypertrophy), which was observed in most of our patients. In the initial phase, the increase of wall thickness in particular is a beneficial adaptive mechanism which, according to Laplace’s law, contributes to the reduced stress within the ventricular wall. Over time, however, it turns into an unfavourable phenomenon that leads to impaired ventricular function [17,18].

Leonardi et al. [19] and Singh et al. [20] demonstrated an increased left ventricular mass in addition to the increased left ventricular end-diastolic dimension in children with mixed aortic valve disease. Furthermore, in a group of children and young adults, Hill et al. [21] demonstrated a higher left ventricular end-diastolic dimension in patients with mixed aortic valve disease compared to the group with isolated AS.

Based on our preliminary findings and on the theoretical and practical premises, we analysed the effects of the existing LV remodelling on LV systolic function as assessed by 2D STE, conventional methods, and tissue Doppler imaging.

Left ventricular systolic function assessed by conventional method (ejection fraction) was normal in all our patients, including those who presented with a reduced ejection fraction prior to BAV. Partial consistency between PW-TDI and 2D STE has been demonstrated for the assessment of longitudinal systolic function of the myocardium. While a significant reduction was found for lateral mitral annulus velocity (s’ lat), the velocities of the medial portion of the annulus (s’ spt) were normal compared to the control group.

Notably, ejection fraction is a parameter that is significantly dependent on LV loading condition and therefore its ability to detect systolic dysfunction may be limited. PW-TDI, on the other hand, mainly reflects longitudinal systolic function of the myocardium.

Also, the analyses conducted in adult patients suggest that the detection of impaired LV systolic function by conventional echocardiography (EF) indicates the irreversibility of the completed changes and therefore contributes to worse treatment outcomes and increased mortality [13].

Left ventricular systolic function impairment expressed as reduced GLS and regional strain was present in nearly half of our patients, while that expressed as GLSr and regional strain rate was identified in 35% of the patients. We showed that the only factor that impaired GLS was LVEH, whose presence increased the risk of longitudinal myocardial dysfunction by nearly seven-fold. These findings point to injury within the subendocardial layer, which is responsible for longitudinal LV strain, while no circumferential myocardial dysfunction was identified.

Only two available studies showed the assessment of myocardial function in children during the intermediate- and short-term follow-up after BAV. In the first one, Marcus et al. [22] observed an improvement in myocardial strain but not its normalisation. They demonstrated that the reduced pre-BAV left ventricular longitudinal and circumferential strains increased significantly at 6 months post-procedure but failed to improve over the 2.5 years of further follow-up, while radial strain did normalise. In the second one, Ankola et al. demonstrated normalisation of reduced LV longitudinal strain in small infants shortly after BAV due to severe AS, while the circumferential strain was not affected neither before nor after the procedure [23]. They also found no abnormality of myocardium function in circumferential direction, which was consistent with our study.

The factors responsible for the unfavorable consequences of LV remodeling remain unclear. The impairment of longitudinal strain and strain rate combined with the simultaneous preservation of normal values of circumferential strain and stain rate in our study suggests that the subendocardial layer of longitudinal muscle fibres is, by virtue of their location, more susceptible to pathological changes than the middle and subepicardial layers of fibres, which run in oblique and transverse directions. Under conditions of increased pre- and afterload, especially with increased LVEDd, the increased left ventricular wall stress impairs the perfusion in the subendocardial region distant from the epicardial coronary vessels. In accordance to Laplace’s law, left ventricular wall stress increases with increased left ventricular end-diastolic dimension. This is confirmed by the presence of LVEH in 75% of our patients.

GLS also showed significant correlation with LVEDd and LVEH.

Some studies in adults patients also show a relation between longitudinal strain impairment and fibrosis measured by gadolinium enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging [24,25].

There are several published studies in literature that were conducted in patients with AR which did not develop as a complication of interventional treatment. Lowenthal et al. [26] found GLS to be impaired in children with moderate to severe AR. They also showed that the reduction of GLS below –15.3% and that of GLSr below –0.79/s indicated the persistence of impaired left ventricular function after the aortic valve surgery. In addition, circumferential strain was no different in the quoted study, similar to this current study. Leonardi et al. [19] demonstrated reduced GLS and elevated GCS in older children and young adults with aortic stenosis combined with regurgitation. Similar findings have been reported by Ewe et al. [27], Mizariene et al. [28] and Iida et al. [29] in adult patients with isolated AR. Reduced longitudinal strain and lower compliance of the middle and subendocardial layers of the left ventricular myocardium in response to the pathological effects of increased pre- and afterload have also been reported by other authors [26,30].

Our observations suggest that the initial functional changes occur in the endocardium, where the longitudinal course of the muscle fibres predominates. The preserved normal values of circumferential strain and strain rate may play a compensatory role in maintaining LVEF in the presence of impaired global longitudinal stain. Therefore, the assessment of longitudinal LV systolic function by measuring global longitudinal strain by 2D STE is an appropriate indicator for detecting subclinical systolic dysfunction in patients after BAV. 2D STE is more sensitive than the evaluation of tissue velocities or that the conventional one- and two-dimensional echocardiographic methods. Importantly, longitudinal systolic function impairment identified in patients more than 3 years after the procedure may suggest that pathological changes (e.g. fibrosis) are becoming permanent at least in the subendocardial layers of the myocardium.

These findings may additionally inform the timing of aortic valve surgical treatment for AR and/or the presence of a residual pressure gradient after previous BAV.

In conclusion, 2D STE allows to detect LV systolic function impairments in patients with normal parameters on conventional echocardiography.

Conclusions

Patients who have undergone balloon aortic valvuloplasty present subclinical left ventricular systolic impairment in the long-term follow-up which is associated with the presence of left ventricular remodelling. Longitudinal strain is the most sensitive marker of left ventricular systolic impairment in this group of patients.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file. (88.5KB, xls)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Sullivan PM, Rubio AE, Johnston TA, Jones TK, Long-Term Outcomes and Re-Interventions Fallowing Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty in Pediatric Patients With Congenital Aortic Stenosis: A Single-Center Study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 89:288–296. 10.1002/ccd.26722 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Auld B, Carrigan L, Ward C, Justo R, Alphonso N, Anderson B, Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Stenosis: A 14-Year Single Centre Review. Heart Lung Circ 2019; 28:632–636. 10.1016/j.hlc.2018.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Godlewski K, Werner B, Long-term results of percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty in children with aortic stenosis: a single-centre experience. Kardiol Pol 2020; 78:559–566. 10.33963/KP.15245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Capoulade R, Le Ven F, Clavel MA, Dumesnil JG, Dahou A, Thébault C, et al., Echocardiographic predictors of outcomes in adults with aortic stenosis. Heart 2016; 102:934–942. 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dąbrowska-Kugacka A, Dorniak K, Meyer-Szary J, Rey AH, Lewicka E, Ostrowska K, et al. Myocardial function in patients with anomalous left coronary artery from the pulmonaryartery syndrome: A long-term speckle tracking echocardiographic study. PLoS ONE 2019; 14(10): e0223227. 10.1371/journal.pone.0223227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.An X, Wang J, Li H, Lu Z, Bai Y, Xiao H, et al. (2016) Speckle Tracking Based Strain Analysis Is Sensitive for Early Detection of Pathological Cardiac Hypertrophy. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(2): e0149155. 10.1371/journal.pone.0149155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American society of echocardiography and the European association of cardiovascular imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:233–71. 10.1093/ehjci/jev014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lopez L, Colan SD, Frommelt PC, Ensing GJ, Kendall K, Younoszai AK, et al., Recommendations for Quantification Methods During the Performance of a Pediatric Echocardiogram: A Report From the Pediatric Measurements Writing Group of the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010; 23:465–95. 10.1016/j.echo.2010.03.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Devereux RB, Alonso DR, Lutas EM, Gottlieb GJ, Campo E, Sachs I, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57:450–58. 10.1016/0002-9149(86)90771-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.de Simone G, Daniels SR, Devereux RB, Meyer RA, Roman MJ, de Divitiis O, et al. Left ventricular mass and body size in normotensive children and adults: assessment of allometric relations and impact of overweight. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20:1251–60. 10.1016/0735-1097(92)90385-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Luis SA, Pellikka PA. Is Speckle Tracking Imaging Ready for Prime Time in Current Echo Clinical Practice?. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2018; 61:437–445. 10.1016/j.pcad.2018.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Voigt JU, Pedrizzetti G, Lysyansky P, Marwick TH, Houle H, Baumann R, et al., Definitions for a Common Standard for 2D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography: Consensus Document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to Standardize Deformation Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015; 28:183–93. 10.1016/j.echo.2014.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Verseckaite R, Mizariene V, Montvilaite A, Auguste I, Bieseviciene M, Laukaitiene J, et al., The predictive value of left ventricular myocardium mechanics evaluation in asymptomatic patients with aortic regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. A long-term speckle-tracking echocardiographic study. Echocardiography 2018; 35:1277–1288. 10.1111/echo.14030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Debry N, Maréchaux S, Rusinaruc D, Peltier M, Messika-Zeitoune D, Menet A, et al., Prognostic significance of left ventricular concentric remodelling in patients with aortic stenosis. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2017; 110:25–34. 10.1016/j.acvd.2016.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jashari H, Rydberg A, Ibrahimi P, Bajraktari G, Henein MY. Left ventricular response to pressure afterload in children: aortic stenosis and coarctation: a systematic review of the current evidence. Int J Cardiol 2015; 178:203–9. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.10.089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dogan V, Ocal B, Orun UA, Ozgur S, Yilmaz O, Keskin M, et al., Strain and Strain Rate Echocardiography Findings in Children With Asymptomatic Congenital Aortic Stenosis. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34:1152–1158. 10.1007/s00246-012-0619-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cox DA, Walton K, Bartz PJ, Tweddell JS, Frommelt PC, Earing MG, Predicting Left Ventricular Recovery After Replacement of a Regurgitant Aortic Valve in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients: Is It Ever Too Late?. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34:694–699. 10.1007/s00246-012-0529-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Matsumura Y, Gillinov AM, Toyono M, Wada N, Yamano T, Thomas JD, et al. Usefulness of left ventricular shape to predict the early recovery of left ventricular function after isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2008, 102:1530–1534. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.07.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Leonardi B, Margossian R, Anders SP, Chinali M, Colan SD, Ventricular mechanics in patients with aortic valve disease: longitudinal, radial and circumferential components. Cardiol Young 2014; 24:105–112. 10.1017/S1047951112002326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Singh AK, Ungerleider RM, Law YM, The Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Children. Pediatr Cardiol 2016; 37:1022–1027. 10.1007/s00246-016-1383-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hill AC, Brown DW, Colan SD, Gauvreau K, del Nido PJ, Lock J, et al. Mixed Aortic Valve Disease in the Young: Initial Observations. Pediatr Cardiol 2014; 35:934–942. 10.1007/s00246-014-0878-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Marcus KA, de Korte CL, Feuth T, Thijssen JM, van Oort AM, Tanke RB, et al., Persistent Reduction in Left Ventricular Strain Using Two-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography after Balloon Valvuloplasty in Children with Congenital Valvular Aortic Stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012; 25:473–85. 10.1016/j.echo.2012.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ankola AA, DiLorenzo MP, Turner ME, Torres AJ, Crystal MA, Shah A, Left Ventricular Strain Normalizes After Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty in Infants with Congenital Aortic Stenosis. Pediatr Cardiol 2020; 41:576–583. 10.1007/s00246-020-02322-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Al Musa T, Uddin A, Swoboda PP, Garg P, Fairbairn TA, Dobson LE, et al., Myocardial strain and symptom severity in severe aortic stenosis: insights from cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2017; 7:38–47. 10.21037/qims.2017.02.05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dusenbery SM, Lunze FI, Jerosch-Herold M, Geva T, Newburger JW, Colan SD, et al., Left Ventricular Strain and Myocardial Fibrosis in Congenital Aortic Stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2015; 116:1257–1262. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.07.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lowenthal A, Tacy TA, Behzadian F, Punn R, Echocardiographic Predictors of Early Postsurgical Myocardial Dysfunction in Pediatric Patients With Aortic Valve Insufficiency. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34:1335–1343. 10.1007/s00246-013-0646-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ewe SH, Haeck ML, Ng AC, Witkowski TG, Auger D, Leong DP, et al., Detection of subtle left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with significant aortic regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: speckle tracking echocardiographic analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015; 16:992–9. 10.1093/ehjci/jev019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mizarienė V, Bučytė S, Žaliaduonytė-Pekšienė D, Jonkaitienė R, Janėnaitė J, Vaškelytė J, et al., Components of Left Ventricular Ejection and Filling in Patients With Aortic Regurgitation Assessed by Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography. Medicina (Kaunas) 2012; 48:31–8. 10.3390/medicina48010005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Iida N, Seo Y, Ishizu T, Nakajima H, Atsumi A, Yamamoto M, et al., Transmural Compensation of Myocardial Deformation to Preserve Left Ventricular Ejection Performance in Chronic Aortic Regurgitation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012; 25:620–8. 10.1016/j.echo.2012.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Attias D, Macron L, Dreyfus J, Monin JL, Brochet E, Lepage L, et al., Relationship between Longitudinal Strain and Symptomatic Status in Aortic Stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013; 26:868–74. 10.1016/j.echo.2013.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

YIRU GUO

15 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-36499

Left Ventricular Systolic Function Impairment in Children after Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Stenosis Assessed by 2D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Werner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

YIRU GUO, M.D., F.A.H.A.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for including your ethics statement:

"Bioethical Committee of the Medical University of Warsaw KB/45/2014, written consent.".

i) Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

ii) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

4.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Left Ventricular Systolic Function Impairment in Children after Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Stenosis Assessed by 2D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography

This study attempts to investigate left ventricular remodeling after balloon valvuloplasty for aortic stenosis and discovered lower longitudinal strain and strain rate for these patients after a follow-up period compared to control population. The authors appropriately address an important question that aids clinicians’ understanding of the ventricle in patients with addressed aortic stenosis and may have data that have long term implications for these patients. I have some important concerns about the study design, interpretation of data results, and the authors’ conclusions. The patients studied have varying degrees of aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency or both. The study population is not homogenous with varying amounts of preload from aortic insufficiency and afterload from aortic stenosis; how can the reader tell what variable affects strain more with this mixture of patients. The authors should ideally split the population as a subanalysis to see if the same statistical results hold true by looking at mostly aortic insufficiency, mostly aortic stenosis, and mixed disease. The follow-up time period needs to be clearly stated and is not presented in the abstract – what does long-term follow-up mean? The reader needs a clear definition with years (or months) and a range or standard deviation. Another important point is that the strain values are not that different from established normal; so are they truly depressed? I would argue that they are lower by paired comparison with the control group but not necessarily lower than established normal, unless the authors show that with prior established normals for the strain package the study includes. Why did the authors have 40 study and a different number of control patients? Were the comparisons to controls not paired? Below are additional comments I have in order of appearance within the authors’ work:

1. Abstract – long term – this needs to be clearly defined in months with a range/sd; see comment above

2. Abstract – the GLS should be just one decimal point (-19.69 should be -19.7); I don’t think strain is accurate to 4 significant figures

3. Abstract – what other variables besides GLS were in the multivariable model; this should be included in the abstract too

4. Abstract – the authors describe “left ventricular systolic dysfunction” in the study patients – I would argue that the strain may be within the normal limits. I would state lower strain values than the control patients in the study; please see my prior comment above

5. Abstract – balloon is mispelled

6. Introduction – The authors state: “The conventional two-dimensional echocardiography (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] assessment) fails to reveal LV systolic function impairment for a long duration of the disease.” Do we know for sure that there is systolic function impairment? I would argue that the conventional measurements show presumed normal function or even normal FS or EF.

7. Introduction – The authors state that the diminished LVEF in adults “already indicates an advanced degree of LV dysfunction.” How do we know this? What is a marker of this?

8. Methods – how do we know that the control group is healthy? Were these volunteers? Were these patients that happened to come for indications that were benign and discovered to have innocuous disease? Why are there not an equal number of control patients? Did the controls not get matched to the age/size of the study patients?

9. Table 1 – The authors have a 0,7 when it should be a decimal place. 0.7 should have 2 significant figures in the p-value section like the other p-values. Other than IVSd, LVPWd, LVRWT, the other values should have only one decimal place.

10. Methods – LVRWT<0,44 should be 0.44 and did the authors use a mass/volume ratio to detect eccentric hypertrophy? Is there a reference for LVRWT the authors can supply to justify the eccentric hypertrophy definition?

11. Methods – The authors state “By using continuous-wave Doppler (CW-Doppler) and color Doppler an assessment of the LV-Ao instantaneous peak systolic Doppler gradient (PGmax) and the grade AR (on a 4-point grading scale) were made.” I believe an assessment “was” made not “were” made.

12. Methods – pulse-wave should be pulsed-wave Doppler (line 95)

13. Methods – line 107, did the authors or the software reject poorly tracking segments?

14. Methods – line 115-116, the authors used the control group to establish cut-off values with a standard deviation. The authors should look at established normal values for strain for the software utilized in this study. If none exist, then the authors should state this.

15. Methods – Statistical Analysis – ICC and interobserver variability is not mentioned here when these comparisons are in the results. How was percentage difference calculated? This makes a significant difference. Did the authors compare percentage difference (100%*(observer1-observer2)/(average of observers) or just the absolute difference such as -17.1% vs -16.1% (1% difference). The first yields a 6% difference while the second is just a 1% difference. I highly recommend that it should be a percentage difference (the first one with 6%) since that clearly tells the variability.

16. Results – The follow-up data after BAV should be given in line 133 after the description of BAV. This way the reader knows precisely how long there has been remodeling.

17. Results – The AR and AS patients overlap and a VENN diagram or something equivalent to show – pure AS, pure AI and mixed disease would be much more helpful

18. Table 2 – the values should have only one decimal point for the LVEH and no LVEH columns. P-value columns are fine except for the LVEF P-value should be two decimals not one.

19. Results – line 163 what does value greater mean. -19% is technically less than -18% but we know for strain that is not the case. I would state the “The magnitude value” or “The absolute value”. The authors should use just 2 decimal places for strain rate and one for strain on line 163 (ie., -19.31 should be -19.3 while -0.8/s should be -0.80/s).

20. Results – line 166 I would replace the word “impaired” with “less”.

21. Results – I strongly urge a subanalysis of GLS for mostly volume loaded left ventricles, mostly pressure loaded left ventricles, and mixed disease to determine if there is a category that is more strongly lower than the normal cut-off values.

22. Table 3 – p-value 0.9 should be two decimal places. The other values for strain should have one decimal place while strain rate two decimal places.

23. Results – line 177: GLS in the study group correlated positively with LVEH. This makes no sense since higher LVEH made the GLS lower. Are the authors suggesting that the strain improves with more aortic stenosis or insufficiency?

24. Table 4/5 – please see prior comments about significant figures/decimal places. The authors should use the abbreviation for LVEH or take out the abbreviation altogether.

25. Results – lines 227-245 – these paragraphs reiterate what is in the table and is redundant; this needs to be summarized into just the most pertinent findings or the reader will get distracted

26. Results – were the interobserver variability results blinded. Were the %differences absolute percent difference or just the difference in strain? Please see my prior comment on reproducibility. The authors report reproducibility on strain. What about strain rate?

27. Discussion – what disease aortic stenosis/regurgitation/mixed disease causes the biggest difference in strain values from the control group.

28. Discussion – line 340 - Notably circumferential strain was no different in the quoted study, similar to this current study.

Reviewer #2: Overall:

This manuscript presents a study that aims to evaluate LV remodeling and systolic function using 2D STE in 59 children during long-term follow-up after BAV for AS. The results presented in this manuscript provides valuable information for the clinical assessment of this important complex pediatric condition.

Title:

“Left Ventricular Systolic Function Impairment in Children after Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Stenosis Assessed by 2D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography”

The tittle seems appropriate for the manuscript.

Abstract:

The length and content of the abstract are adequate for the manuscript. LVEF should be spelled out in the abstract (other abbreviations are included in the abstract)

Manuscript

Introduction

The length and content of the introduction section is appropriate.

Materials and Methods

The length and content of the methods section is appropriate, however one minor point is, if the authors could not test inter and intra -observer variability, could they provide a reference where it has been tested in the past? It would make the manuscript stronger.

Results

The length and content of the methods section is appropriate.

Discussion

The content, organization and length are appropriate

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0248862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248862.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

29 Jan 2021

Reviewer 1: I have incorporated all of your suggestions into my revision. They were very helpful. Thank You.

Reviewer 2: I have incorporated all of your suggestions into my revision. Thank you for your help.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file. (550KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

YIRU GUO

8 Mar 2021

Left Ventricular Systolic Function Impairment in Children after Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Stenosis Assessed by 2D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography

PONE-D-20-36499R1

Dear Dr. Werner,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

YIRU GUO, M.D., F.A.H.A.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed my concerns on this paper and here a few more suggestions:

1. In the discussion, the authors should probably acknowledge that the comparisons among aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and mixed diseases yielded no difference; however, the sample sizes were relatively small in each subcategory which may have affected this comparison.

2. Although the graph for gls and lveh mathematically shows a "positive" correlation given negative values, I recommend reiterating that the more negative GLS values correspond with higher strain when explaining these findings in the Results section too. Positive correlation implies an "improvement" in function when, in fact, it's the opposite.

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed the comments from the reviewers and in my opinion this manuscript should be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

YIRU GUO

21 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36499R1

Left Ventricular Systolic Function Impairment in Children after Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Stenosis Assessed by 2D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography

Dear Dr. Werner:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. YIRU GUO

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES