Key result
In patients with recovered LVEF, each point increase in absolute global longitudinal strain increased the likelihood of maintaining an LVEF >50% on follow-up by 24% (OR 1.24; P=0.001).
Why the study?
Does global longitudinal strain predict future deterioration of left ventricular function in heart failure patients with a recovered left ventricular ejection fraction?
Cohort (n=96)
Does global longitudinal strain predict future deterioration of left ventricular function in heart failure patients with a recovered left ventricular ejection fraction?
Odds Ratio: 1.24
p-value: p=0.001
In heart failure patients with recovered LVEF, baseline global longitudinal strain can risk-stratify patients for future deterioration of left ventricular function.
GLS was associated with LVEF maintenance in recovered HF; hypothesis-generating for prospective validation before guiding surveillance.
Background— Patients with recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk for future deterioration of LVEF. However, there are no tools to risk stratify these patients. We hypothesized that global longitudinal strain (GLS) could predict sustained recovery within this population. Methods and Results— We retrospectively identified 96 patients with a reduced LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had increased by at least 10% and normalized (>50%) on evidence-based medical therapies (baseline echocardiogram). We examined absolute GLS on the baseline echocardiogram in relation to changes in LVEF on a follow-up echocardiogram. Patients with recovered LVEF had a wide range of GLS. The GLS on the baseline study correlated with the LVEF at the time of follow-up ( r =0.33; P <0.001). The likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up increased by 24% for each point increase in absolute GLS on the baseline study (odds ratio, 1.24; P =0.001). An abnormal GLS (≤16%) at baseline had a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 46%, and an accuracy of 0.67 ( P <0.001) as a predictor of a decrease in LVEF >5% during follow-up. A normal GLS (>16%) on the baseline study had a sensitivity of 47%, a specificity of 83%, and an accuracy of 0.65 ( P =0.002) for predicting a stable LVEF (−5% to 5%) on follow-up. Conclusions— In patients with a recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of having a decreased LVEF during follow-up, whereas a normal GLS predicts the likelihood of stable LVEF during recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adamo et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction (n=96). Global longitudinal strain (GLS) was evaluated on Likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up (OR 1.24, p=0.001). In patients with recovered LVEF, each point increase in absolute global longitudinal strain increased the likelihood of maintaining an LVEF >50% on follow-up by 24% (OR 1.24; P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: