Background— We prospectively evaluated the prevalence, pattern, and prognostic impact of left ventricular (LV) remodeling after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) successfully treated with primary PTCA. The prevalence, course, and prognostic value of LV remodeling after primary PTCA are still to be clarified. Methods and Results— In 284 consecutive patients with AMI treated with primary PTCA, serial echocardiographic and angiographic studies, within 24 hours (T1), at 1 (T2) and 6 months (T3) after AMI were performed. Long-term (61±14 months) clinical follow-up data were collected for 98.6% patients enrolled in the study. Overall, 85 (30%) patients showed LV dilation (>20% end-diastolic volume increase) at T3 as compared with T1. Early (from T1 to T2), late (from T2 to T3), and progressive dilation patterns (from T1 to T2 to T3) were detected in 42 (15%), 41 (14%), and 36 (13%) patients, respectively. Cardiac death and combined events rate was significantly higher among patients with than among those without LV dilation ( P =0.005 and P =0.025, respectively). The pattern of LV dilation during 6 months did not significantly affect survival. Cox survival analysis identified end-systolic volume at T1 and age as baseline predictors and end-systolic volume at T3 and age as 6-month predictors of cardiac death, respectively. Conclusions— LV remodeling after successful PTCA occurs despite sustained patency of the infarct-related artery and preservation of regional and global LV function. LV dilation at 6 months after AMI but not the specific pattern of LV dilation is clearly associated with worse long-term clinical outcome.

Apical rocking (ApRock) and septal flash (SF) are often observed phenomena in asynchronously contracting ventricles. We investigated the relationship of visually assessed ApRock and SF, reverse remodelling, and long-term survival in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates. A total of 1060 patients eligible for CRT underwent echocardiographic examinations before and 12 ± 6 months after device implantation. Three blinded physicians were asked to visually assess the presence of ApRock and SF before device implantation and also their correction by CRT 12 ± 6 months post-implantation. Patients with a left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume decrease of ≥15% during the first year of follow-up were regarded as responders. Patients were followed for a median period of 46 months (interquartile range: 27–65 months) for the occurrence of death of any cause. If corrected by CRT, visually assessed ApRock and SF were associated with reverse remodelling with a sensitivity of 84 and 79%, specificity of 79 and 74%, and accuracy of 82 and 77%, respectively. ApRock (hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30–0.53, P < 0.0001) and SF (HR 0.45 [CI 0.34–0.61], P < 0.001) were independently associated with lower all-cause mortality after CRT and had an incremental value over clinical variables and QRS width for identifying CRT responders. Both the absence of ApRock/SF and unsuccessful correction of ApRock/SF despite CRT were associated with a high risk for non-response and an unfavourable long-term survival. A specific LV mechanical dyssynchrony pattern, characterized by ApRock and SF, is associated with a more favourable long-term survival after CRT. Both parameters are also indicators of an effective therapy.

The concept of point-of-care, problem-oriented focus cardiac ultrasound examination (FoCUS) is increasingly applied in the settings of medical emergencies, including cardiac diseases. The European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) recognizes that cardiologists are not the only medical professionals dealing with cardiovascular emergencies. In reality, emergency cardiac diagnostics and treatment are also carried out by a wide range of specialists. For the benefit of the patients, the EACVI encourages any medical professional, sufficiently trained to obtain valuable information from FoCUS, to use it in emergency settings. These medical professionals need to have the necessary knowledge to understand the obtained information entirely, and to use it correctly, thoughtfully and with care. In this document, the EACVI underlines major differences between echocardiography and FoCUS, and underscores the need for specific education and training in order to fully utilize advantages and minimize drawbacks of this type of cardiac ultrasound examination in the critically ill patients.