OBJECTIVES: This study hypothesized that left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) derived from 3-dimensional echocardiographic (3DE) images would better predict mortality than those obtained by 2-dimensional echocardiographic (2DE) measurements, and that 3DE-based LV shape analysis may have added prognostic value. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that both LVEF and GLS derived from 2DE images predict mortality. Recently, 3DE measurements of these parameters were found to be more accurate and reproducible because of independence of imaging plane and geometric assumptions. Also, 3DE analysis offers an opportunity to accurately quantify LV shape. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 416 inpatients (60 ± 18 years of age) referred for transthoracic echocardiography between 2006 and 2010, who had good-quality 2DE and 3DE images were available. Mortality data through 2016 were collected. Both 2DE and 3DE images were analyzed to measure LVEF and GLS. Additionally, 3DE-derived LV endocardial surface information was analyzed to obtain global shape indices (sphericity and conicity) and regional curvature (anterior, septal, inferior, lateral walls). Cardiovascular (CV) mortality risks related to these indices were determined using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the 416 patients, 208 (50%) died, including 114 (27%) CV-related deaths over a mean follow-up period of 5 ± 3 years. Cox regression revealed that age and body surface area, all 4 LV function indices (2D EF, 3D EF, 2D GLS, 3D GLS), and regional shape indices (septal and inferior wall curvatures) were independently associated with increased risk of CV mortality. GLS was the strongest prognosticator of CV mortality, superior to EF for both 2DE and 3DE analyses, and 2D EF was the weakest among the 4 functional indices. A 1% decrease in GLS magnitude was associated with an 11.3% increase in CV mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: GLS predicts mortality better than EF by both 3DE and 2DE analysis, whereas 3D EF is a better predictor than 2D EF. Also, LV shape indices provide additional risk assessment.
OBJECTIVES: This study hypothesized that left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) derived from 3-dimensional echocardiographic (3DE) images would better predict mortality than those obtained by 2-dimensional echocardiographic (2DE) measurements, and that 3DE-based LV shape analysis may have added prognostic value. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that both LVEF and GLS derived from 2DE images predict mortality. Recently, 3DE measurements of these parameters were found to be more accurate and reproducible because of independence of imaging plane and geometric assumptions. Also, 3DE analysis offers an opportunity to accurately quantify LV shape. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 416 inpatients (60 ± 18 years of age) referred for transthoracic echocardiography between 2006 and 2010, who had good-quality 2DE and 3DE images were available. Mortality data through 2016 were collected. Both 2DE and 3DE images were analyzed to measure LVEF and GLS. Additionally, 3DE-derived LV endocardial surface information was analyzed to obtain global shape indices (sphericity and conicity) and regional curvature (anterior, septal, inferior, lateral walls). Cardiovascular (CV) mortality risks related to these indices were determined using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the 416 patients, 208 (50%) died, including 114 (27%) CV-related deaths over a mean follow-up period of 5 ± 3 years. Cox regression revealed that age and body surface area, all 4 LV function indices (2D EF, 3D EF, 2D GLS, 3D GLS), and regional shape indices (septal and inferior wall curvatures) were independently associated with increased risk of CV mortality. GLS was the strongest prognosticator of CV mortality, superior to EF for both 2DE and 3DE analyses, and 2D EF was the weakest among the 4 functional indices. A 1% decrease in GLS magnitude was associated with an 11.3% increase in CV mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: GLS predicts mortality better than EF by both 3DE and 2DE analysis, whereas 3D EF is a better predictor than 2D EF. Also, LV shape indices provide additional risk assessment.
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Francesco Maffessanti; Enrico G Caiani; Gloria Tamborini; Manuela Muratori; Lissa Sugeng; Lynn Weinert; Francesco Alamanni; Marco Zanobini; Victor Mor-Avi; Roberto M Lang; Mauro Pepi Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jeptha P Curtis; Seth I Sokol; Yongfei Wang; Saif S Rathore; Dennis T Ko; Farid Jadbabaie; Edward L Portnay; Stephen J Marshalko; Martha J Radford; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mohammed T Ali; Evin Yucel; Souhila Bouras; Lin Wang; Hong-Wen Fei; Elkan F Halpern; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Alfred E Buxton; Kerry L Lee; Gail E Hafley; Luis A Pires; John D Fisher; Michael R Gold; Mark E Josephson; Michael H Lehmann; Eric N Prystowsky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jennifer L Dorosz; Dennis C Lezotte; David A Weitzenkamp; Larry A Allen; Ernesto E Salcedo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert J H Miller; Tali Sharir; Yuka Otaki; Heidi Gransar; Joanna X Liang; Andrew J Einstein; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp A Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo Di Carli; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Catherine J Leader; Mohammed Moharram; Sean Coffey; Ivan A Sammut; Gerard W Wilkins; Robert J Walker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240