Paolo Barbier1, Oana Mirea2, Claudia Cefalù2, Anna Maltagliati2, Gabriele Savioli3, Marco Guglielmo2. 1. Echocardiography Laboratory, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, via Parea, 4, Milan 20138, Italy pbarbier@ccfm.it pbar@iol.it. 2. Echocardiography Laboratory, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, via Parea, 4, Milan 20138, Italy. 3. Medical Clinic II, Policlinico Fondazione San Matteo, IRCCS, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS: Echocardiographic evaluation of 2D longitudinal peak systolic strain (LPSS) can detect initial impairment of left ventricular (LV) function in heart disease. Global LPSS (GLPSS) variability has been assessed in small groups and segmental LPSS has not been determined. We compared variability of GLPSS and segmental LPSS with that of 2D LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in patients with and without heart diseases. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2D speckle tracking analysis was performed on LV apical views using automated function imaging (AFI) software (GE Healthcare). Intra-operator, inter-cycle, and test-retest variability (bias and CR, coefficient of reproducibility; MPE, mean percent error; CV, coefficient of variation) was assessed for GLPSS, 18 segments of LPSS, and LV volumes and EF in 40 patients (720 segments), and inter-operator variability in 250 patients (4500 segments). Feasibility of segmental tracking was 93.1%. Variability of GLPSS increased from a minimum intra-operator CV = -2.6% to a maximum test-retest CV = -5.4% and was lower than that assessed for volumes and EF. Segmental intra-operator LPSS CV ranged from -5.6 to -14.7%, and test-retest from -8 to -22%, and was at worst similar to variability of end-systolic volume. In the 8.3% of segments with the highest variability, this was related to suboptimal imaging, minor changes in scan angulation, and insufficient ROI width. CONCLUSION: Overall, reproducibility of GLPSS is excellent and superior to that of 2D EF, whereas segmental LPSS reproducibility is good and similar to that of LV volumes. Both are suitable for diagnosis and follow-up of LV global and regional systolic function. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Echocardiographic evaluation of 2D longitudinal peak systolic strain (LPSS) can detect initial impairment of left ventricular (LV) function in heart disease. Global LPSS (GLPSS) variability has been assessed in small groups and segmental LPSS has not been determined. We compared variability of GLPSS and segmental LPSS with that of 2D LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in patients with and without heart diseases. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2D speckle tracking analysis was performed on LV apical views using automated function imaging (AFI) software (GE Healthcare). Intra-operator, inter-cycle, and test-retest variability (bias and CR, coefficient of reproducibility; MPE, mean percent error; CV, coefficient of variation) was assessed for GLPSS, 18 segments of LPSS, and LV volumes and EF in 40 patients (720 segments), and inter-operator variability in 250 patients (4500 segments). Feasibility of segmental tracking was 93.1%. Variability of GLPSS increased from a minimum intra-operator CV = -2.6% to a maximum test-retest CV = -5.4% and was lower than that assessed for volumes and EF. Segmental intra-operator LPSS CV ranged from -5.6 to -14.7%, and test-retest from -8 to -22%, and was at worst similar to variability of end-systolic volume. In the 8.3% of segments with the highest variability, this was related to suboptimal imaging, minor changes in scan angulation, and insufficient ROI width. CONCLUSION: Overall, reproducibility of GLPSS is excellent and superior to that of 2D EF, whereas segmental LPSS reproducibility is good and similar to that of LV volumes. Both are suitable for diagnosis and follow-up of LV global and regional systolic function. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Andrea Iannaccone; G Bruno; A Ravera; F Gay; M Salvini; S Bringhen; L Sabia; E Avenatti; F Veglio; A Milan Journal: High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev Date: 2018-03-26
Authors: M S Amzulescu; M De Craene; H Langet; A Pasquet; D Vancraeynest; A C Pouleur; J L Vanoverschelde; B L Gerber Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Michal Orszulak; Artur Filipecki; Wojciech Wrobel; Adrianna Berger-Kucza; Witold Orszulak; Dagmara Urbanczyk-Swic; Wojciech Kwasniewski; Katarzyna Mizia-Stec Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 2.037