Why the study?
Prophylactic IABP use relies on LV systolic function, but whether GLS can serve as a reliable marker and cut-off for IABP insertion compared to LVEF in elective OPCABG is unknown.
Does 2D STE-estimated GLS predict peri-operative IABP insertion better than 3D LV EF in patients undergoing elective OPCABG?
Does 2D STE-estimated GLS predict peri-operative IABP insertion better than 3D LV EF in patients undergoing elective OPCABG?
2D STE-estimated GLS is a more accurate predictor for peri-operative IABP insertion than 3D LV EF in patients undergoing elective OPCABG.
Background: Prophylactic use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) mainly depends on left ventricular (LV) systolic function. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a robust prognostic parameter for LV strain. It has proved to be more sensitive than LV ejection fraction (EF) as a measure of LV systolic function and is a strong predictor of outcome. Aim: To determine whether GLS can be used as a reliable marker and its cut-off value for IABP insertion in patients undergoing elective off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). Settings and Design: A prospective observational clinical study which included 100 adult patients scheduled for elective OPCABG. Materials and Methods: Two-dimensional (2D) speckle tracking echocardiography (STE)-estimated GLS was computed and compared with LV EF measured by three dimensional (3D) echocardiography for the insertion of IABP. The intensive care unit (ICU) parameters were correlated with echocardiographic parameters to predict early post-operative outcome. Results: IABP insertion correlates better with GLS (post-revascularization > pre-revascularization) than with 3D LV EF. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed the highest area under the curve (AUC, 0.972) with a cut-off value of > -9.8% for GLS compared to 3D LV EF (AUC, 0.938) with a cut-off value of ≤ 44%. ICU parameters show better correlation with E/e’> GLS > WMSI than 3D LV EF. Conclusion: GLS is a better predictor of IABP insertion compared to 3D LV EF in patients undergoing OPCABG.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: