Why the study?
To investigate whether repeatedly measured global longitudinal strain provides incremental prognostic value over repeated LVEF, repeated NT-proBNP, and a single baseline GLS value in chronic heart failure.
Does repeatedly measured global longitudinal strain (GLS) provide incremental prognostic value over repeatedly measured LVEF, NT-proBNP, and baseline GLS in patients with chronic heart failure?
Does repeatedly measured global longitudinal strain (GLS) provide incremental prognostic value over repeatedly measured LVEF, NT-proBNP, and baseline GLS in patients with chronic heart failure?
Repeated measurements of GLS do not provide incremental prognostic value over NT-proBNP or single baseline GLS measurements in patients with chronic heart failure.
Serial GLS should not yet guide risk stratification in chronic HF; leaves open incremental value beyond NT-proBNP.
Background: We investigated whether repeatedly measured global longitudinal strain (GLS) has incremental prognostic value over repeatedly measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and a single "baseline" GLS value, in chronic heart failure (HF) patients. Methods: In this prospective observational study, echocardiography was performed in 173 clinically stable chronic HF patients every six months during follow up. During a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a median of 3 (25th-75th percentile:2-4) echocardiograms were obtained per patient. The endpoint was a composite of HF hospitalization, left ventricular assist device, heart transplantation, cardiovascular death. We compared hazard ratios (HRs) for the endpoint from Cox models (used to analyze the first available GLS measurements) with HRs from joint models (which links repeated measurements to the time-to-event data). Results: Mean age was 58 ± 11 years, 76% were men, 81% were in New York Heart Association functional class I/II, and all had LVEF < 50% (mean ± SD: 27 ± 9%). The endpoint was reached by 53 patients. GLS was persistently decreased over time in patients with the endpoint. However, temporal GLS trajectories did not further diverge in patients with versus without the endpoint and remained stable during follow-up. Both single measurements and temporal trajectories of GLS were significantly associated with the endpoint [HR per SD change (95%CI): 2.15(1.34-3.46), 3.54 (2.01-6.20)]. In a multivariable model, repeatedly measured GLS maintained its prognostic value while repeatedly measured LVEF did not [HR per SD change (95%CI): GLS:4.38 (1.49-14.70), LVEF:1.14 (0.41-3.23)]. The association disappeared when correcting for repeatedly measured NT-proBNP. Conclusion: Temporal evolution of GLS was associated with adverse events, independent of LVEF but not independent of NT-proBNP. Since GLS showed decreased but stable values in patients with adverse prognosis, single measurements of GLS provide sufficient information for determining prognosis in clinical practice compared to repeated measurements, and temporal GLS patterns do not add prognostic information to NT-proBNP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamar et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: