Meta-regression reveals that body mass index impacts myocardial mechanics in children with obesity, suggesting diagnostic value of GLS.
Background/Objectives: Although global longitudinal strain (GLS) appears more sensitive than the ejection fraction in uncovering subtle left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, evidence of impaired LV mechanics in children/adolescents with obesity, independent of comorbidities, remains limited. The aim of the present study was to provide new information on clinical and echocardiographic correlates associated with LV mechanics in normotensive children/adolescents with obesity and without comorbidities. Methods: The Pub-Med, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify eligible studies from inception up to 31 March 2025. Studies reporting data on LV mechanics (i.e., GLS, global circumferential strain [GCS]) in children/adolescents with obesity were included. Meta-regression analyses between GLS, GCS, and several clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters were performed using a random-effect model. Results: Twenty-seven studies including 1398 normotensive children/adolescents with obesity (mean age 12.6 ± 1.8 years) were considered. There was a significant inverse relationship between GLS and body mass index (BMI) (coefficient = −0.33 ± 0.11, p = 0.003) and fat mass (coefficient = −0.19 ± 0.07, p = 0.005); this was not the case for GCS. Notably, both GLS and GCS were unrelated to several clinical/laboratory variables such as blood pressure, metabolic parameters, LV mass, and LV diastolic function indices. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that increasing BMI and fat mass are the only key factors associated with reduced longitudinal myocardial deformation in pediatric obesity. GLS, unlike GCS, can be regarded as an early marker of subclinical organ damage in this setting and should be assessed to optimize cardiovascular prevention strategies in children/adolescents with obesity regardless of hypertension or comorbidities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faggiano et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: