AIMS: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography has been proposed as a parameter able to reflect early changes in left ventricular systolic function at a stage when left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is still normal. This study aimed at assessing prevalence and prognostic value of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) assessed by echocardiographic speckle-tracking GLS in a community-based cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants from the community-based prospective Northern Manhattan Study underwent two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography as part of the Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesions study. Left ventricular systolic function was assessed by LVEF and speckle-tracking GLS. Subjects were followed annually (mean = 4.8 ± 1.5 years) and incident vascular events (ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death) were reviewed and adjudicated. Of the 708 study participants, 114 (16.1%) had abnormal GLS but normal LVEF (GLS-LVSD), 30 (4.2%) had abnormal LVEF (LVEF-LVSD), and 564 (79.7%) had normal GLS and LVEF (no-LVSD). In multivariate analysis, risk of events was significantly greater in GLS-LVSD [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-4.77] and in LVEF-LVSD (adjusted HR = 3.51, 95% CI = 1.25-9.88) compared with no-LVSD. Among participants with normal LVEF, lower GLS was significantly associated with events (adjusted HR/unit decrease = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.03-1.28) whereas LVEF was not (adjusted HR/unit decrease = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.94-1.07). The GLS prognostic value was incremental to risk factors and LVEF both in the overall population (chi-square change = 7.406, P = 0.006) and in participants with normal LVEF (chi-square change = 6.357, P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In a community-based cohort, GLS-LVSD was four times more frequent than LVEF-LVSD. GLS-LVSD was a powerful and independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Left ventricular function assessment by GLS may improve cardiovascular risk stratification in subjects with normal LVEF.
AIMS: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography has been proposed as a parameter able to reflect early changes in left ventricular systolic function at a stage when left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is still normal. This study aimed at assessing prevalence and prognostic value of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) assessed by echocardiographic speckle-tracking GLS in a community-based cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS:Participants from the community-based prospective Northern Manhattan Study underwent two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography as part of the Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesions study. Left ventricular systolic function was assessed by LVEF and speckle-tracking GLS. Subjects were followed annually (mean = 4.8 ± 1.5 years) and incident vascular events (ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death) were reviewed and adjudicated. Of the 708 study participants, 114 (16.1%) had abnormal GLS but normal LVEF (GLS-LVSD), 30 (4.2%) had abnormal LVEF (LVEF-LVSD), and 564 (79.7%) had normal GLS and LVEF (no-LVSD). In multivariate analysis, risk of events was significantly greater in GLS-LVSD [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-4.77] and in LVEF-LVSD (adjusted HR = 3.51, 95% CI = 1.25-9.88) compared with no-LVSD. Among participants with normal LVEF, lower GLS was significantly associated with events (adjusted HR/unit decrease = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.03-1.28) whereas LVEF was not (adjusted HR/unit decrease = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.94-1.07). The GLS prognostic value was incremental to risk factors and LVEF both in the overall population (chi-square change = 7.406, P = 0.006) and in participants with normal LVEF (chi-square change = 6.357, P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In a community-based cohort, GLS-LVSD was four times more frequent than LVEF-LVSD. GLS-LVSD was a powerful and independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Left ventricular function assessment by GLS may improve cardiovascular risk stratification in subjects with normal LVEF.
Authors: R B Devereux; M J Roman; M Paranicas; E T Lee; T K Welty; R R Fabsitz; D Robbins; E R Rhoades; R J Rodeheffer; L D Cowan; B V Howard Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: H L Greene; D W Richardson; A H Barker; D M Roden; R J Capone; D S Echt; L M Friedman; M J Gillespie; A P Hallstrom; J Verter Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1989-01-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Jane C Evans; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy; Elizabeth C LeRoy; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Margaret M Redfield; Steven J Jacobsen; John C Burnett; Douglas W Mahoney; Kent R Bailey; Richard J Rodeheffer Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-01-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E J Schaefer; S Lamon-Fava; J L Jenner; J R McNamara; J M Ordovas; C E Davis; J M Abolafia; K Lippel; R I Levy Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-04-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cesare Russo; Fusako Sera; Zhezhen Jin; Vittorio Palmieri; Shunichi Homma; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2016-04-24 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Fusako Sera; Zhezhen Jin; Cesare Russo; Edward S Lee; Joseph E Schwartz; Tatjana Rundek; Mitchell S V Elkind; Shunichi Homma; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Chike C Nwabuo; Yuichiro Yano; Henrique T Moreira; Duke Appiah; Henrique D Vasconcellos; Queen N Aghaji; Anthony Viera; Jamal S Rana; Ravi V Shah; Venkatesh L Murthy; Norrina B Allen; Pamela J Schreiner; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; João A C Lima Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
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