Key result
POCUS-derived EPSS predicts reduced GLS with ~0.95 AUC in dyspneic ED patients.
Why the study?
Assessing global longitudinal strain and biplane ejection fraction requires advanced echocardiographic tools and expertise, creating a need to evaluate whether simple POCUS parameters like EPSS and FS can serve as practical bedside alternatives in dyspneic emergency patients.
Does point-of-care ultrasound measurement of EPSS and FS accurately predict reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and global longitudinal strain in dyspneic emergency patients?
Cross-Sectional
Does point-of-care ultrasound measurement of EPSS and FS accurately predict reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and global longitudinal strain in dyspneic emergency patients?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.949 (EPSS for GLS)
p-value: p=<0.001
Simple POCUS parameters like EPSS and FS provide reliable estimates of left ventricular systolic function in dyspneic emergency patients, with EPSS showing superior diagnostic performance.
Background and Objectives: Dyspnea is a common chief complaint in the emergency department. While global longitudinal strain and biplane ejection fraction are reliable markers of left ventricular systolic function, their assessment requires advanced echocardiographic tools and expertise. Simple point-of-care ultrasound parameters, such as E-point septal separation and fractional shortening may serve as practical alternatives for rapid bedside evaluation. Materials and Methods: EPSS and FS were measured by emergency physicians using POCUS, while reference EF and GLS were obtained by cardiologists via transthoracic echocardiography. Correlation analyses, receiver operating characteristic curves, and agreement statistics were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EPSS and FS for predicting reduced EF (<50%) and GLS (<16%). Results: Reduced EF was present in 54.0% and reduced GLS in 55.6% of patients. EPSS showed strong negative correlations with EF (ρ = −0.834) and GLS (ρ = −0.782), while FS correlated positively with EF (ρ = 0.773) and GLS (ρ = 0.714), all p < 0.001. ROC analysis demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy of EPSS (AUC = 0.922 for EF; 0.949 for GLS) and good accuracy of FS (AUC = 0.874 for EF; 0.865 for GLS). Optimal cut-off values were EPSS ≥ 7.0 mm and FS ≤ 25%. Agreement with reference TTE was good for EPSS (κ = 0.676 for EF; κ = 0.738 for GLS) and moderate for FS (κ ≈ 0.56). Conclusions: Both EPSS and FS measured by POCUS provide reliable estimates of left ventricular systolic function in dyspneic ED patients, with EPSS demonstrating superior diagnostic performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uçar et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Dyspnea. Point-of-care ultrasound (EPSS and FS) vs. Transthoracic echocardiography (EF and GLS) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for predicting reduced EF (<50%) and GLS (<16%) (AUC 0.949 (EPSS for GLS), p=<0.001). Point-of-care ultrasound measurement of E-point septal separation demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy for predicting reduced global longitudinal strain (AUC 0.949) in dyspneic ED patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: