Why the study?
Normal reference values for 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography-derived global longitudinal left atrial strain during the reservoir phase (LASr) were needed to define normal and abnormal spectra and evaluate sources of variation.
The established normal reference value for global longitudinal left atrial strain during the reservoir phase by 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography is 27.5%, providing a baseline to identify abnormal atrial function.
Provides 3DSTE LASr normal reference of 27.5%; extends standardization for clinical interpretation and future studies.
The normal reference value of the global longitudinal left atrial strain during the reservoir phase (LASr) by 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography (3DSTE) is needed to define the abnormal and normal spectra and to compare and interpret the obtained values. The present study is a meta-analysis of 3DSTE-derived normal reference value of the longitudinal LASr and an attempt to determine probable contributing factors in the variations of reported ranges. The databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched for the following keywordS: "Left atrial/left atrium" and "strain/speckle/deformation" and "three-dimensional/3-dimensional/three dimensional/3 dimensional/three dimension/3 dimension/three-dimension/3-dimension/3D/3-D". The studies selected included those on adult healthy subjects without cardiovascular risk factors. A random-effect model was used to calculate the global 3DSTE-derived longitudinal LASr, and meta-regression was applied to determine inter-study heterogeneity. Our search yielded 316 adult subjects from 5 studies. The mean value of the global 3DSTE-derived longitudinal LASr was 27.5% (95% CI, 25.2-29.8%). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. The meta-regression analysis revealed the publication year, the heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure as the sources of heterogeneity. The current meta-analysis determined a normal reference value of the global 3DSTE-derived longitudinal LASr of 27.5% (95% CI, 25.2-29.8%). The heterogeneity between studies may be explained by the publication year, the heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohseni‐Badalabadi et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: