Key result
Contrast-enhanced echo improves LVGLS reproducibility over standard 2D in patients with suboptimal acoustic windows.
Why the study?
Whether left ventricular global longitudinal strain can be accurately measured with ultrasound enhancing agents remains controversial.
Does contrast-enhanced echocardiography (LVO and MCE modes) provide feasible and reproducible measurements of LVGLS compared to standard 2D mode in patients with optimal and suboptimal image quality?
Observational (n=75)
Does contrast-enhanced echocardiography (LVO and MCE modes) provide feasible and reproducible measurements of LVGLS compared to standard 2D mode in patients with optimal and suboptimal image quality?
Measuring LVGLS using contrast-enhanced echocardiography modes is feasible and improves measurement reproducibility, particularly in patients with suboptimal acoustic windows.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support contrast-enhanced LVGLS in suboptimal windows; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) is an important parameter to evaluate left ventricular (LV) systolic function, which is more sensitive and reproducible than left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, whether LVGLS can be accurately measured with ultrasound enhancing agent (UEA) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to verify the feasibility and reproducibility of LVGLS in different contrast-enhanced echocardiography (CE) modes. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) was used to measure LVGLS on 75 patients included in this study. Patients were divided into optimal group ( n = 33) and suboptimal group ( n = 42) according to image quality. LVGLS measurements were performed in 2D mode, left ventricular opacification (LVO) mode, and myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) mode. 2D mode LVGLS measurements of the optimal group were used as a reference standard. The comparisons among different modes of each group included Bland-Altman analysis, linear regression and intra-class correlation (ICC). 20 patients were randomly selected from each group to analyze the inter- and intra-observer variability. The LVO and MCE modes of optimal group had similar LVGLS measurements with 2D mode (-14.30 ± 4.73% 2D vs. -15.32 ± 4.78% LVO vs. -15.36 ± 5.41% MCE , ICC: 0.814 2D−LVO vs. 0.781 2D−MCE , P < 0.001). There was good agreement between LVO and MCE mode in two groups (ICC: 0.855 optimal vs. 0.935 suboptimal , P < 0.001). In suboptimal group, both LVO and MCE mode had poor agreement with 2D mode in terms of LVGLS measurements (-13.86 ± 5.46% 2D vs. -15.39 ± 7.74% LVO vs. -15.66 ± 7.78% MCE , ICC: 0.739 2D−LVO vs. 0.687 2D−MCE, P < 0.001). CE improved inter-observer variability in suboptimal group (ICC: 0.630 2D vs. 0.864 LVO vs. 0.830 MCE , P = 0.022, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, respectively). It is feasible to measure LVGLS in different CE modes, even in patients with suboptimal acoustic windows, which can reduce the impact of image quality on LVGLS measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ZHU et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing echocardiography (n=75). Contrast-enhanced echocardiography (LVO and MCE modes) vs. 2D mode echocardiography was evaluated on LVGLS measurement agreement (ICC) between 2D and LVO/MCE modes (ICC 0.814 for 2D-LVO, p=<0.001). Measuring left ventricular global longitudinal strain using contrast-enhanced echocardiography modes is feasible and improves inter-observer variability in patients with suboptimal acoustic windows.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: