Key result
Global longitudinal strain demonstrated significantly higher inter-observer reproducibility than left ventricular ejection fraction (ICC 0.89 vs 0.63, p<0.001) regardless of echocardiographic training.
Why the study?
GLS by speckle tracking echocardiography appears to offer improved reproducibility over LVEF, but comparisons between experts and trainees as examiners and analysts were needed.
Does global longitudinal strain provide better reproducibility than left ventricular ejection fraction for evaluating left ventricular function regardless of echocardiographic training in patients with recent ACS?
Comparison
GLS vs LVEF reproducibility between an expert and a trainee
Design
Blinded reproducibility study
Authors
Loading...
Supports GLS for reproducible LV assessment post-ACS; hypothesis-generating for practice change pending outcome trials.
Cross-Sectional (n=47)
Blinded to clinical data and each other's findings
No
Does global longitudinal strain provide better reproducibility than left ventricular ejection fraction for evaluating left ventricular function regardless of echocardiographic training in patients with recent ACS?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.89% vs 0.63%
p-value: p=<0.001
Global longitudinal strain provides a more reproducible assessment of left ventricular function than ejection fraction, even when performed by operators with different levels of training.
Karlsen et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (n=47). Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle tracking echocardiography vs. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by Simpson's biplane method was evaluated on Inter-observer reproducibility (Intra class correlation coefficient) when each operator analyzed their own images (95% CI 0.74-0.95, p=<0.001). Global longitudinal strain demonstrated significantly higher inter-observer reproducibility than left ventricular ejection fraction (ICC 0.89 vs 0.63, p<0.001) regardless of echocardiographic training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: