Luigi Adamo1, Andrew Perry1, Eric Novak1, Majesh Makan1, Brian R Lindman1, Douglas L Mann2. 1. From the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 2. From the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. dmann@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk for future deterioration of LVEF. However, there are no tools to risk stratify these patients. We hypothesized that global longitudinal strain (GLS) could predict sustained recovery within this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified 96 patients with a reduced LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had increased by at least 10% and normalized (>50%) on evidence-based medical therapies (baseline echocardiogram). We examined absolute GLS on the baseline echocardiogram in relation to changes in LVEF on a follow-up echocardiogram. Patients with recovered LVEF had a wide range of GLS. The GLS on the baseline study correlated with the LVEF at the time of follow-up (r=0.33; P<0.001). The likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up increased by 24% for each point increase in absolute GLS on the baseline study (odds ratio, 1.24; P=0.001). An abnormal GLS (≤16%) at baseline had a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 46%, and an accuracy of 0.67 (P<0.001) as a predictor of a decrease in LVEF >5% during follow-up. A normal GLS (>16%) on the baseline study had a sensitivity of 47%, a specificity of 83%, and an accuracy of 0.65 (P=0.002) for predicting a stable LVEF (-5% to 5%) on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of having a decreased LVEF during follow-up, whereas a normal GLS predicts the likelihood of stable LVEF during recovery.
BACKGROUND:Patients with recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk for future deterioration of LVEF. However, there are no tools to risk stratify these patients. We hypothesized that global longitudinal strain (GLS) could predict sustained recovery within this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified 96 patients with a reduced LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had increased by at least 10% and normalized (>50%) on evidence-based medical therapies (baseline echocardiogram). We examined absolute GLS on the baseline echocardiogram in relation to changes in LVEF on a follow-up echocardiogram. Patients with recovered LVEF had a wide range of GLS. The GLS on the baseline study correlated with the LVEF at the time of follow-up (r=0.33; P<0.001). The likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up increased by 24% for each point increase in absolute GLS on the baseline study (odds ratio, 1.24; P=0.001). An abnormal GLS (≤16%) at baseline had a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 46%, and an accuracy of 0.67 (P<0.001) as a predictor of a decrease in LVEF >5% during follow-up. A normal GLS (>16%) on the baseline study had a sensitivity of 47%, a specificity of 83%, and an accuracy of 0.65 (P=0.002) for predicting a stable LVEF (-5% to 5%) on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of having a decreased LVEF during follow-up, whereas a normal GLS predicts the likelihood of stable LVEF during recovery.
Authors: Lynn R Punnoose; Michael M Givertz; Eldrin F Lewis; Parakash Pratibhu; Lynne W Stevenson; Akshay S Desai Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Anupam Basuray; Benjamin French; Bonnie Ky; Esther Vorovich; Caroline Olt; Nancy K Sweitzer; Thomas P Cappola; James C Fang Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard K Cheng; Margueritte Cox; Megan L Neely; Paul A Heidenreich; Deepak L Bhatt; Zubin J Eapen; Adrian F Hernandez; Javed Butler; Clyde W Yancy; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Havard Dalen; Anders Thorstensen; Svein A Aase; Charlotte B Ingul; Hans Torp; Lars J Vatten; Asbjorn Stoylen Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2009-11-28
Authors: Marco Merlo; Marco Masè; Andrew Perry; Eluisa La Franca; Elena Deych; Laura Ajello; Diego Bellavia; Andrea Boscutti; Marco Gobbo; Giuseppe Romano; Davide Stolfo; John Gorcsan; Francesco Clemenza; Gianfranco Sinagra; Luigi Adamo Journal: Heart Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Carla J Weinheimer; Attila Kovacs; Sarah Evans; Scot J Matkovich; Philip M Barger; Douglas L Mann Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Stanley A Swat; David Cohen; Sanjiv J Shah; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Abigail S Baldridge; Benjamin H Freed; Esther E Vorovich; Clyde W Yancy; Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda; Stuart Prenner; Daniel Kim; Jane E Wilcox Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: In Hyun Jung; Jin Hye Park; Jeong A Lee; Gwang Sil Kim; Hye Young Lee; Young Sup Byun; Byung Ok Kim Journal: J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-04