Why the study?
Does speckle-tracking echocardiography detect early left ventricular dysfunction in uremia patients compared to normal subjects?
Does speckle-tracking echocardiography detect early left ventricular dysfunction in uremia patients compared to normal subjects?
Speckle-tracking echocardiography, specifically GLS and E/LSRe, can detect early left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction in uremia patients even when LVEF is preserved.
STE strain indices may detect subclinical dysfunction in uremia; leaves open prognostic value and clinical utility.
Background: Cardiac dysfunction especially diastolic function is frequently observed in uremia patients. Recent reports suggest that HF with preserved EF is more common in hemodialysis patients than HF with low EF. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess strain indices in uremia patients by speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). Methods: 43 uremia patients were recruited and divided into Group A1 (LVEF≥50% & normal diastolic function), Group A2 (LVEF≥50% & reduced diastolic function) and Group B (LVEF <50%) according to 2016 ASE guideline. 15 normal subjects were enrolled as control group (Group C). The indices included: left ventricular systolic longitudinal strain (GLS), systolic LS rate (LSRs), early diastolic LS rate (LSRe), E/e' and E/LSRe. Results: Compared with group C, LVEF decreased only in Group B (P<0.05) and LSRs decreased only in Group A2 and Group B (P<0.05), while GLS showed a significant decrease in all uremia groups (P<0.05). Compared with group C, e', LSRe decreased and LAVI, E/e' increased only in group A2 and group B (P<0.05), while E/ LSRe showed a significant increase in all uremia groups (P<0.05). Also, GLS and E/LSRe showed a decrease or increase tendency from group A1, A2 to group B (P<0.05). Among three uremia groups, compared with group A1, all the systolic or diastolic indices showed a deterioration trend in group B, while only partial indices such as LVEF, LAVI, e', E/e' and E/ LSRe showed a deterioration trend in group A2. (Table 1)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: