BACKGROUND: Peak systolic longitudinal strain (PSLS) obtained using the 2D speckle tracking method is a novel indicator of the long-axis function of the left ventricle (LV). We used the 2D strain profile to examine the effect of preload reduction by hemodialysis (HD) on LV PSLS in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHOD AND RESULTS: Twenty-nine pairs of echocardiographic evaluations were obtained before and after dialysis. Global LV PSLS was -18.4 +/- 2.9%, at baseline and decreased to -16.9 +/- 3.2% after HD (P < 0.001). Segmental analysis showed that the decrease in PSLS after dialysis was most prominent in mid-LV segments (-17.1 +/- 3.5% vs. -15.4 +/- 3.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PSLS obtained from the 2D strain profile is a reliable parameter that may be useful for evaluating LV systolic long-axis function. However, PSLS should be applied cautiously in ESRD patients because it could be affected by dialysis.
BACKGROUND: Peak systolic longitudinal strain (PSLS) obtained using the 2D speckle tracking method is a novel indicator of the long-axis function of the left ventricle (LV). We used the 2D strain profile to examine the effect of preload reduction by hemodialysis (HD) on LV PSLS in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHOD AND RESULTS: Twenty-nine pairs of echocardiographic evaluations were obtained before and after dialysis. Global LV PSLS was -18.4 +/- 2.9%, at baseline and decreased to -16.9 +/- 3.2% after HD (P < 0.001). Segmental analysis showed that the decrease in PSLS after dialysis was most prominent in mid-LV segments (-17.1 +/- 3.5% vs. -15.4 +/- 3.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PSLS obtained from the 2D strain profile is a reliable parameter that may be useful for evaluating LV systolic long-axis function. However, PSLS should be applied cautiously in ESRDpatients because it could be affected by dialysis.
Authors: Jennifer H Jordan; Bunyapon Sukpraphrute; Giselle C Meléndez; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Ralph B D'Agostino; W Gregory Hundley Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nicholas Olson; Jason P Brown; Andrew M Kahn; William R Auger; Michael M Madani; Thomas J Waltman; Daniel G Blanchard Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Gary S Mak; Heloisa Sawaya; Abigail May Khan; Pankaj Arora; Andrew Martinez; Allicia Ryan; Laura Ernande; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Thomas J Wang; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Smita Mehta; Philip R Khoury; Nicolas L Madsen; Lawrence M Dolan; Thomas R Kimball; Elaine M Urbina Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Danielle L Shepherd; Quincy A Hathaway; Cody E Nichols; Andrya J Durr; Mark V Pinti; Kristen M Hughes; Amina Kunovac; Seth M Stine; John M Hollander Journal: J Mol Cell Cardiol Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 5.000
Authors: David Black; Jen Bryant; Charles Peebles; Lucy Davies; Hazel Inskip; Keith Godfrey; Joseph Vettukattil; Mark Hanson Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 1.655