Why the study?
Does global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment improve prediction of major adverse cardiac events compared to ejection fraction (EF) in patients with global LV dysfunction?
Does global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment improve prediction of major adverse cardiac events compared to ejection fraction (EF) in patients with global LV dysfunction?
Global longitudinal strain (GLS) demonstrates superior prognostic value compared to traditional ejection fraction for predicting major adverse cardiac events.
GLS should supplant EF for MACE risk stratification in LV dysfunction; confirms superior prognostic value in meta-analysis.
There is strong evidence of the prognostic value of GLS, which appears to have superior prognostic value to EF for predicting major adverse cardiac events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalam et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: