Key result
Left ventricular global longitudinal strain estimated elevated LV filling pressure with an AUC of 0.79 (84% sensitivity, 73% specificity), showing higher sensitivity than the 2016 algorithm.
Why the study?
Elevated LV filling pressure is estimated using guideline-recommended echocardiographic algorithms, but the efficacy of LV global longitudinal strain for estimating elevated LV filling pressure needed evaluation.
Does LV GLS accurately estimate elevated LV filling pressure compared to invasive measurement in patients undergoing left heart catheterization?
Observational (n=73)
Does LV GLS accurately estimate elevated LV filling pressure compared to invasive measurement in patients undergoing left heart catheterization?
LV GLS is a feasible and sensitive echocardiographic parameter for estimating elevated LV filling pressure, potentially serving as a major criterion for diagnosing HFpEF.
May support GLS for diastolic assessment; hypothesis-generating and requires validation before practice change.
Purpose: An elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is the main finding in patients with heart failure 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) guideline. In this study, we sought to determine the efficacy of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) to estimate the elevated LV filling pressure. Methods and Results: 73 prospectively selected patients undergoing left ventricular catheterization (mean age 63.19±9.64, 68.5% male) participated in this study. Using the algorithm, the LV filling pressure was estimated with the echo parameters obtained within 24hrs before the catheterization. The LV GLS was measured using the automated functional imaging system (GE, Vivid E9 USA). Invasive LV pre-A pressure corresponding to mean left atrial pressure (LAP) was used as a reference, and >12 mm Hg was defined as elevated. The invasive LV filling pressure was elevated in 43 (58.9%) and normal in 30 patients (41.1%). In 9 (12.3%) patients of 73 are defined as indeterminate based on the 2016 algorithm. Using the ROC method, -18.1% of LV GLS estimated the LV filling pressure (AUC=0.79, 73% specificity, 84% sensitivity) with higher sensitivity compared with the algorithm (AUC=0.76, 77% specificity, 72% sensitivity). Conclusions: We confirmed that the LV GLS is feasible and reproducible in estimating LV filling pressure. In addition, LV GLS highly predicts elevated LAP as E/e’ and TR jet velocity and may be used as major criteria 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 Estimation of elevated LV filling pressure (>12 mm Hg) (AUC 0.79). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain estimated elevated LV filling pressure with an AUC of 0.79 (84% sensitivity, 73% specificity), showing higher sensitivity than the 2016 algorithm.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: