BACKGROUND: Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS), circumferential strain (LVGCS) and radial strain (LVGRS) are echocardiographic parameters with wide clinical applicability. However, the thresholds for abnormal left ventricular (LV) strains, particularly the lower limits of normal (LLN), are not well established. This meta-analysis determined the mean and LLN of two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) LV strain in healthy subjects and factors that influence strain measurements. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases until 31 December 2019 for studies reporting left ventricular (LV) global strain in at least 50 healthy subjects. We pooled means and LLNs of 2D and 3D LV strain using random-effects models, and performed subgroup and meta-regression analysis for LVGLS. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were eligible totaling 8,910 subjects. The pooled means and LLNs (95% confidence intervals) were -20.1% (-20.7%, -19.6%) and -15.4% (-16.0%, -14.7%) respectively for 2D-LVGLS; -21.9% (-23.4%, -20.3%) and -15.3% (-16.9%, -13.8%) respectively for 2D-LVGCS; and 48.4% (43.8%, 53.0%) and 25.5% (17.8%, 33.1%) respectively for 2D-LVGRS. All pooled analyses demonstrated significant heterogeneity, and means and LLNs of and 3D-LV strains differed marginally from 2D. Only vendor software was associated with differences in pooled means and LLN of 2D-LVGLS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, pooled means and LLNs of 2D- and 3D-LV global strain parameters in healthy subjects were reported. Based on the pooled LLNs, thresholds for abnormal, borderline and normal strains can be defined, such as less negative than -14.7%, between -14.7% and -16.0% and more negative than -16.0% respectively for 2D-LVGLS, and 2D-LVGLS values are only affected by vendor software. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS), circumferential strain (LVGCS) and radial strain (LVGRS) are echocardiographic parameters with wide clinical applicability. However, the thresholds for abnormal left ventricular (LV) strains, particularly the lower limits of normal (LLN), are not well established. This meta-analysis determined the mean and LLN of two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) LV strain in healthy subjects and factors that influence strain measurements. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases until 31 December 2019 for studies reporting left ventricular (LV) global strain in at least 50 healthy subjects. We pooled means and LLNs of 2D and 3D LV strain using random-effects models, and performed subgroup and meta-regression analysis for LVGLS. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were eligible totaling 8,910 subjects. The pooled means and LLNs (95% confidence intervals) were -20.1% (-20.7%, -19.6%) and -15.4% (-16.0%, -14.7%) respectively for 2D-LVGLS; -21.9% (-23.4%, -20.3%) and -15.3% (-16.9%, -13.8%) respectively for 2D-LVGCS; and 48.4% (43.8%, 53.0%) and 25.5% (17.8%, 33.1%) respectively for 2D-LVGRS. All pooled analyses demonstrated significant heterogeneity, and means and LLNs of and 3D-LV strains differed marginally from 2D. Only vendor software was associated with differences in pooled means and LLN of 2D-LVGLS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, pooled means and LLNs of 2D- and 3D-LV global strain parameters in healthy subjects were reported. Based on the pooled LLNs, thresholds for abnormal, borderline and normal strains can be defined, such as less negative than -14.7%, between -14.7% and -16.0% and more negative than -16.0% respectively for 2D-LVGLS, and 2D-LVGLS values are only affected by vendor software. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Strain; lower limit of normal (LLN); meta-analysis; speckle-tracking echocardiography
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Victor Mor-Avi; Jonathan Afilalo; Anderson Armstrong; Laura Ernande; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Steven A Goldstein; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Patrizio Lancellotti; Denisa Muraru; Michael H Picard; Ernst R Rietzschel; Lawrence Rudski; Kirk T Spencer; Wendy Tsang; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Vien T Truong; Hoang T Phan; Khanh N P Pham; Hoang N H Duong; Tam N M Ngo; Cassady Palmer; Tuy T H Nguyen; Bao H Truong; Minh A Vo; Justin T Tretter; Sherif F Nagueh; Eugene S Chung; Wojciech Mazur Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Myrthe E Menting; Jackie S McGhie; Laurens P Koopman; Wim B Vletter; Willem A Helbing; Annemien E van den Bosch; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: M Sefa Okten; K Tuluce; S Yakar Tuluce; S Kilic; H Soner Kemal; A Sayin; O Vuran; B Yagmur; I Mutlu; E Simsek; C Soydas Cinar; C Gurgun Journal: Herz Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Federico M Asch; Tatsuya Miyoshi; Karima Addetia; Rodolfo Citro; Masao Daimon; Sameer Desale; Pedro Gutierrez Fajardo; Ravi R Kasliwal; James N Kirkpatrick; Mark J Monaghan; Denisa Muraru; Kofo O Ogunyankin; Seung Woo Park; Ricardo E Ronderos; Anita Sadeghpour; Gregory M Scalia; Masaaki Takeuchi; Wendy Tsang; Edwin S Tucay; Ana Clara Tude Rodrigues; Amuthan Vivekanandan; Yun Zhang; Alexandra Blitz; Roberto M Lang Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Tom Kai Ming Wang; Scott D Flamm; Paul Schoenhagen; Brian P Griffin; L Leonardo Rodriguez; Richard A Grimm; Bo Xu Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2021-08-26
Authors: Tom Kai Ming Wang; Richard A Grimm; L Leonardo Rodriguez; Patrick Collier; Brian P Griffin; Zoran B Popović Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240