Key result
Hypertensive patients with strain ST-T changes on ECG exhibited significantly impaired endocardial radial strain compared to those without ST-T changes (antero-septal: 19.3% vs 31.9%, p<0.01).
Why the study?
Does the presence of electrocardiographic strain ST-T changes correlate with impaired subendocardial strain in hypertensive patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=111)
No
Does the presence of electrocardiographic strain ST-T changes correlate with impaired subendocardial strain in hypertensive patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 19.3% vs 31.9%
p-value: p=<0.01
Hypertensive patients with ECG strain ST-T changes exhibit impaired endocardial radial and longitudinal strain despite preserved LVEF, suggesting a link between ECG strain patterns and subclinical subendocardial dysfunction.
May indicate subclinical dysfunction in hypertensives with preserved LVEF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background: Strain ST-T changes on Electrocardiography (ECG) is a well-recognized marker of the presence and severity of Left Ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, which is usually associated with subendocardial dysfunction. However, the relationship between ST-T change and subendocardial dysfunction in hypertensive patients is unknown. Recently, two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography has been used to define myocardial deformation parameters of the LV segment. Herein, we assessed subendocardial dysfunction patients with strain ST-T changes on electrocardiogram using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoshikazu Ohara (2014) conducted a cross-sectional in Essential hypertension with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (n=111). Strain ST-T changes on ECG vs. Absence of strain ST-T changes was evaluated on Endocardial radial strain (antero-septal segment) (p=<0.01). Hypertensive patients with strain ST-T changes on ECG exhibited significantly impaired endocardial radial strain compared to those without ST-T changes (antero-septal: 19.3% vs 31.9%, p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: