Key result
Strain rate imaging correlates with LVEF but not standard diastolic function measures in HFpEF.
Why the study?
To assess the predictive value of strain-rate imaging in detecting systolic dysfunction among patients with HFpEF and the severity of diastolic dysfunction in relation to systolic dysfunction by echocardiography.
Does strain rate imaging assess underlying systolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF?
Observational (n=50)
Does strain rate imaging assess underlying systolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF?
Effect estimate: R -0.46 (GLS), R -0.51 (GCS)
p-value: p=<0.0001
Strain rate imaging (GLS and GCS) is a useful tool to assess underlying systolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF, correlating with LVEF and NT-proBNP.
Strain imaging may identify systolic dysfunction in HFpEF; cross-sectional data leaves open prospective validation for risk stratification.
Introduction: HFpEFis increasing 1% per year when compared to HFrEF with an ageing population and rising risk-factors like hypertension,obesity&diabetes.Endothelial-dysfunction, proteininteractions,signaling-pathways&myocardial-bioenergetics are the suggested pathophysiological causes for HFpEF.2D-STEhas been utilised to identify HFpEF by focusing on the LV-GLS. To assess the predictive valueAim: of strain-rate imaging in detecting systolic-dysfunction among patients with HFpEF&Severity of diastolic-dysfunction in relation to the systolic- dysfunction by echocardiography. Among 50 patients with HFpEF,majority of patients were in age group 56-65 years.In our observationResults: 46% were hypertensive,32% were diabetic,2% wereobese,2% had OSA,18% had dyslipidemia,12% were hypothyroid,44% of patients were on betablocker therapy,NYHA class II,III,lV breathlessness was in 36%,42%,22% respectively at the time of presentation.We observed E/e' > 15 was noted in 22% patients and 78% had normal LV-lling pressures,40% had mitral E/A ratio 0.8-1.5,48% had mitral E/A ratio <0.8,2% had mitral E/A ratio 1.5 - 2,10% had mitral E/A ratio >2,LA-volume > 40ml in 38% patients and <40 ml in 62% patients.96% had LVEDD of 4.2-5.8 cm& 2% had LV EDD of 5.9-6.3 ,TR velocity was found to be <2.8 m/sec in 98% & 2% had >2.8 m/sec.Average LV-GLS was found to be reduced(<- 16%) in 64%,borderline reduced(-16% to -18%) in 24%, >-18% in 12% patients.In HFpEF,both GLS and GCS were related to LVEF(LS,R = −0.46; p<0.0001;CS,R = −0.51;p<0.0001) but not to standard echocardiographic measures of diastolic-function(E' or E/E').Lower GLS was modestly associated with higher NT-proBNP,includingLVEF,measures of diastolic-function and LV-lling pressure. HFpEF is aConclusions: major cause of morbidity and mortality,utility of GLS and GCS is cost-effective way to assess underlying systolic-dysfunction in patients with HFpEF,guides clinician for prognostication and management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sidhartha. et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) (n=50). Strain rate imaging (GLS and GCS) vs. Standard echocardiographic measures was evaluated on Underlying systolic dysfunction and severity of diastolic dysfunction (R -0.46 (GLS), R -0.51 (GCS), p=<0.0001). Strain rate imaging using global longitudinal and circumferential strain was significantly related to LVEF (R=-0.46 and R=-0.51, p<0.0001) but not to standard measures of diastolic function in HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: