Does speckle tracking global longitudinal systolic strain (GLS) improve the precision of infarct size estimation compared to traditional echocardiographic indices in patients with STEMI?
GLS measured 1 day after STEMI provides a more precise estimation of final infarct size than LVEF or ESVI, offering early prognostic value.
AIMS: To assess the utility of speckle tracking global longitudinal systolic strain (GLS) compared with traditional echocardiographic indices including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall motion score index (WMSI), and end-systolic volume index (ESVI), in estimating the infarct size (IS) following a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study includes 227 patients with STEMI and day 1 and day 30 echocardiograms, and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) only at day 30 to assess IS. IS was modelled by linear regression with echocardiographic parameters using MPI as reference. Resulting echocardiographic IS estimates were compared by ratios of standard deviations of model residuals (RSD). To estimate the resultant day 30 IS 1 day after a STEMI, GLS was more precise than LVEF (RSD: 0.91, P = 0.014) and ESVI (RSD: 0.88, P = 0.002), and comparable with WMSI (RSD 0.99, P = 0.86). To estimate IS from a day 30 echocardiogram, GLS was comparable with LVEF (RSD: 0.98, P = 0.68) and ESVI (RSD: 1.04, P = 0.40), but WMSI was more precise (RSD: 0.89, P = 0.006). Multiple linear regression revealed that on day 1 after STEMI, GLS significantly complemented the standard parameters separately (P-values all models
Munk et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: