Key result
Left ventricular global longitudinal strain of -18.1% predicted elevated left atrial pressure with an AUC of 0.79 (84% sensitivity, 73% specificity), showing better sensitivity than the algorithm.
Why the study?
Elevated LV filling pressure is key in HFpEF, and investigators sought to determine the efficacy of LV global longitudinal strain in predicting it.
Does left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) accurately predict elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to invasive measurement?
Observational (n=73)
Does left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) accurately predict elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to invasive measurement?
Left ventricular global longitudinal strain is an independent predictor of elevated left atrial pressure and may serve as a major criterion for diagnosing HFpEF.
May aid noninvasive LAP estimation in HFpEF; leaves open its role in diagnostic algorithms pending validation.
PURPOSE: An elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is the main finding in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction, which is estimated with an algorithm using echocardiographic parameters recommended by the recent American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) guidelines. In this study, we sought to determine the efficacy of the LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) in predicting an elevated LV filling pressure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 73 prospectively selected patients undergoing LV catheterization (mean age 63.19 ± 9.64, 69% male) participated in this study. Using the algorithm, the LV filling pressure was estimated using the echocardiographic parameters obtained within 24 hours before catheterization. The LV GLS was measured using an automated functional imaging system (GE, Vivid E9 USA). Invasive LV pre-A pressure corresponding to the mean left atrial pressure (LAP) was used as a reference, and a LAP of >12 mm Hg was defined as elevated. Invasive LV filling pressure was elevated in 43 patients (59%) and normal in 30 patients (41%). Nine of 73 (12%) patients were defined as indeterminate based on the 2016 algorithm. Using the ROC method, -18.1% of LV GLS determined the elevated LAP (AUC =0.79; specificity, 73%; sensitivity, 84%) with better sensitivity compared to that by the algorithm (AUC =0.76; specificity, 77%; sensitivity, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that LV GLS was an independent predictor of elevated LAP as the E/e' ratio and TR jet velocity and may be used as a major criterion for the diagnosis of HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Elevated left ventricular filling pressure (n=73). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) vs. 2016 ASE/EACVI algorithm was evaluated on Elevated left atrial pressure (LAP >12 mm Hg) (AUC 0.79). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain of -18.1% predicted elevated left atrial pressure with an AUC of 0.79 (84% sensitivity, 73% specificity), showing better sensitivity than the algorithm.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on HFrEF treatmentMore from Echocardiography