Kawa Haji1,2,3, Thomas H Marwick4,5,6. 1. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, PO Box 6492, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. 2. Cardiology Department, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Departments of Cardiometabolic Health and Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, PO Box 6492, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. tom.marwick@baker.edu.au. 5. Cardiology Department, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia. tom.marwick@baker.edu.au. 6. Departments of Cardiometabolic Health and Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. tom.marwick@baker.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Assessment of left ventricular function is pivotal in many decisions, but ejection fraction has fundamental limitations for assessment of mild dysfunction, and especially for repeated assessments. Myocardial deformation imaging using speckle-tracking is widely available on modern echocardiography systems, and is now feasible as a clinical, rather than purely a research tool. Strain can be measured in all cardiac chambers, most commonly as a systolic parameter, although it can be measured in diastole. Generally, speckle tracking is more effective at measuring strain than strain-rate, which requires a higher temporal resolution. The purpose of this review is to help clinicians understand the main situations where strain provides incremental value to standard echocardiographic measurements. RECENT FINDINGS: The normal range of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) has now been defined as -18% and lower (ie more negative), abnormal as -16% or higher (ie less negative), with -16 to -18% being borderline. The variation between different vendors is now small for global parameters, but regional strain measurement remains unreliable - and therefore its use for stress echocardiography remains problematic. The most valuable indications for measuring strain are subclinical LV dysfunction (eg., GLS in HFpEF, stage B heart failure, aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation), RV dysfunction (RV strain in pulmonary hypertension), atrial fibrillation (LA strain) and sequential follow-up (cardiotoxicity). Strain measurements have clinical utility in a number of settings and should be considered as part of the standard echocardiogram.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Assessment of left ventricular function is pivotal in many decisions, but ejection fraction has fundamental limitations for assessment of mild dysfunction, and especially for repeated assessments. Myocardial deformation imaging using speckle-tracking is widely available on modern echocardiography systems, and is now feasible as a clinical, rather than purely a research tool. Strain can be measured in all cardiac chambers, most commonly as a systolic parameter, although it can be measured in diastole. Generally, speckle tracking is more effective at measuring strain than strain-rate, which requires a higher temporal resolution. The purpose of this review is to help clinicians understand the main situations where strain provides incremental value to standard echocardiographic measurements. RECENT FINDINGS: The normal range of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) has now been defined as -18% and lower (ie more negative), abnormal as -16% or higher (ie less negative), with -16 to -18% being borderline. The variation between different vendors is now small for global parameters, but regional strain measurement remains unreliable - and therefore its use for stress echocardiography remains problematic. The most valuable indications for measuring strain are subclinical LV dysfunction (eg., GLS in HFpEF, stage B heart failure, aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation), RV dysfunction (RV strain in pulmonary hypertension), atrial fibrillation (LA strain) and sequential follow-up (cardiotoxicity). Strain measurements have clinical utility in a number of settings and should be considered as part of the standard echocardiogram.
Authors: Jens-Uwe Voigt; Gianni Pedrizzetti; Peter Lysyansky; Tom H Marwick; Helen Houle; Rolf Baumann; Stefano Pedri; Yasuhiro Ito; Yasuhiko Abe; Stephen Metz; Joo Hyun Song; Jamie Hamilton; Partho P Sengupta; Theodore J Kolias; Jan d'Hooge; Gerard P Aurigemma; James D Thomas; Luigi Paolo Badano Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: M Louisa Antoni; Sjoerd A Mollema; Victoria Delgado; Jael Z Atary; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Eric Boersma; Eduard R Holman; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Chung-Lieh Hung; Anil Verma; Hajime Uno; Sung-Hee Shin; Mikhail Bourgoun; Amira H Hassanein; John J McMurray; Eric J Velazquez; Lars Kober; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott D Solomon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ashish Manohar; Gabrielle M Colvert; Juan E Ortuño; Zhennong Chen; James Yang; Brendan T Colvert; W Patricia Bandettini; Marcus Y Chen; María J Ledesma-Carbayo; Elliot R McVeigh Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Daniele Masarone; Michelle M Kittleson; Stefano De Vivo; Antonio D'Onofrio; Ernesto Ammendola; Gerardo Nigro; Carla Contaldi; Maria L Martucci; Vittoria Errigo; Giuseppe Pacileo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Anum S Minhas; Nisha A Gilotra; Erin Goerlich; Thomas Metkus; Brian T Garibaldi; Garima Sharma; Nicole Bavaro; Susan Phillip; Erin D Michos; Allison G Hays Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-06-14