OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the ability of left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) to assess disease severity in patients with chronic systolic heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: Left ventricular GLS is a sensitive measure of LV mechanics. Its relationship with standard clinical markers and long-term adverse events in chronic systolic HF is not well established. METHODS: In 194 chronic systolic HF patients, we performed comprehensive echocardiography with assessment of GLS by velocity vector imaging averaged from apical 4-chamber and 2-chamber views. Death, cardiac transplantation, and HF hospitalization were tracked for 5 years. RESULTS: In our study cohort (age 57 ± 14 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 26 ± 6%, median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] 1,158 pg/ml), the mean GLS was -7.1 ± 3.3%. The GLS worsened with increasing New York Heart Association functional class (rank-sum p < 0.0001) and higher NT-proBNP (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). The GLS correlated with LV cardiac structure (LV mass index: r = 0.35, p < 0.0001; LV end-diastolic volume index: r = 0.43, p < 0.0001) and LVEF (r = -0.66, p < 0.0001). A lower magnitude of GLS was associated with worsening LV diastolic function (E/e' septal: r = 0.33, p < 0.0001), right ventricular (RV) systolic function (RV s': r = -0.30, p < 0.0001), and RV diastolic function (RV e'/a': r = 0.16, p = 0.033). GLS predicted long-term adverse events (hazard ratio: 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 2.00; p < 0.001). Worsening strain (GLS ≥-6.95%) predicted adverse events after adjustment for age, sex, ischemic etiology, E/e' septal, and NT-proBNP (hazard ratio: 2.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 3.94; p = 0.025) and age, sex, ischemic etiology, and LVEF (hazard ratio: 2.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.19 to 4.02; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: In chronic systolic HF, worsening LV GLS is associated with more severe LV diastolic dysfunction and RV systolic and diastolic dysfunction, and provides incremental prognostic value to LVEF.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the ability of left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) to assess disease severity in patients with chronic systolic heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: Left ventricular GLS is a sensitive measure of LV mechanics. Its relationship with standard clinical markers and long-term adverse events in chronic systolic HF is not well established. METHODS: In 194 chronic systolic HFpatients, we performed comprehensive echocardiography with assessment of GLS by velocity vector imaging averaged from apical 4-chamber and 2-chamber views. Death, cardiac transplantation, and HF hospitalization were tracked for 5 years. RESULTS: In our study cohort (age 57 ± 14 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 26 ± 6%, median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] 1,158 pg/ml), the mean GLS was -7.1 ± 3.3%. The GLS worsened with increasing New York Heart Association functional class (rank-sum p < 0.0001) and higher NT-proBNP (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). The GLS correlated with LV cardiac structure (LV mass index: r = 0.35, p < 0.0001; LV end-diastolic volume index: r = 0.43, p < 0.0001) and LVEF (r = -0.66, p < 0.0001). A lower magnitude of GLS was associated with worsening LV diastolic function (E/e' septal: r = 0.33, p < 0.0001), right ventricular (RV) systolic function (RV s': r = -0.30, p < 0.0001), and RV diastolic function (RV e'/a': r = 0.16, p = 0.033). GLS predicted long-term adverse events (hazard ratio: 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 2.00; p < 0.001). Worsening strain (GLS ≥-6.95%) predicted adverse events after adjustment for age, sex, ischemic etiology, E/e' septal, and NT-proBNP (hazard ratio: 2.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 3.94; p = 0.025) and age, sex, ischemic etiology, and LVEF (hazard ratio: 2.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.19 to 4.02; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: In chronic systolic HF, worsening LV GLS is associated with more severe LV diastolic dysfunction and RV systolic and diastolic dysfunction, and provides incremental prognostic value to LVEF.
Authors: Michael J Bonios; Antigone Koliopoulou; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Iosif Taleb; Josef Stehlik; Weining Xu; James Wever-Pinzon; Anna Catino; Abdallah G Kfoury; Benjamin D Horne; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Stamatis N Adamopoulos; James C Fang; Craig H Selzman; Jeroen J Bax; Stavros G Drakos Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Hirohiko Motoki; Kazuaki Negishi; Kenya Kusunose; Zoran B Popović; Mandeep Bhargava; Oussama M Wazni; Walid I Saliba; Mina K Chung; Thomas H Marwick; Allan L Klein Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Johannes H Riffel; Marius G P Keller; Matthias Aurich; Yannick Sander; Florian Andre; Sorin Giusca; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Sebastian Seitz; Christian Galuschky; Grigorios Korosoglou; Derliz Mereles; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jonathan Potfay; Karoly Kaszala; Alex Y Tan; Adam P Sima; John Gorcsan; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Jose F Huizar Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2015-08-21
Authors: Masataka Sugahara; Nobuyuki Kagiyama; Nina E Hasselberg; Lori A Blauwet; Joan Briller; Leslie Cooper; James D Fett; Eileen Hsich; Gretchen Wells; Dennis McNamara; John Gorcsan Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Cesare Russo; Zhezhen Jin; Fusako Sera; Edward S Lee; Shunichi Homma; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.792