Why the study?
Evaluating the link between GLS changes and cardiomyopathy risk in childhood cancer survivors has been limited by a lack of quality apical 2- and 3-chamber views, prompting evaluation of apical 4-chamber longitudinal strain alone as a surrogate.
Can apical 4-chamber longitudinal strain (A4LS) serve as a suitable surrogate for global longitudinal strain (GLS) in childhood cancer survivors?
Can apical 4-chamber longitudinal strain (A4LS) serve as a suitable surrogate for global longitudinal strain (GLS) in childhood cancer survivors?
Apical 4-chamber longitudinal strain performs well as a surrogate for global longitudinal strain in childhood cancer survivors, enabling retrospective analysis of older echocardiogram cohorts where full apical views are lacking.
BACKGROUND: A previous multicenter study showed that longitudinal changes in standard cardiac functional parameters were associated with the development of cardiomyopathy in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). Evaluation of the relationship between global longitudinal strain (GLS) changes and cardiomyopathy risk was limited, largely due to lack of quality apical 2- and 3-chamber views in addition to 4-chamber view. We sought to determine whether apical 4-chamber longitudinal strain (A4LS) alone can serve as a suitable surrogate for GLS in this population. METHODS: A4LS and GLS were measured in echocardiograms with acceptable apical 2-, 3-, and 4-chamber views. Correlation was evaluated using Pearson and Spearman coefficients, and agreement was evaluated with Bland-Altman plots. The ability of A4LS to identify normal and abnormal values compared to GLS as the reference was evaluated. RESULTS: Among a total of 632 reviewed echocardiograms, we identified 130 echocardiograms from 56 patients with adequate views (38% female; mean age at cancer diagnosis 8.3 years; mean follow-up 9.4 years). Correlation coefficients between A4LS and GLS were .89 (Pearson) and .85 (Spearman), with Bland-Altman plot of GLS-A4LS showing a mean difference of -.71 ± 1.8. Compared with GLS as the gold standard, A4LS had a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 79%-93%) and specificity of 82% (69%-95%) when using normal range cutoffs and 90% (82%-97%) and 70% (58%-81%) when using ±2 standard deviations. CONCLUSION: A4LS performs well when compared with GLS in this population. Given the more recent adoption of apical 2- and 3-chamber views in most pediatric echocardiography laboratories, A4LS is a reasonable stand-alone measurement in retrospective analyses of older study cohorts and echocardiogram biorepositories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mosgrove et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: