Key result
GLS predicts mortality at ~-14% and detects septic myocardial dysfunction better than LVEF.
Why the study?
Sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction is frequently underdiagnosed by conventional echocardiography, leading researchers to assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of global longitudinal strain in ICU septic shock patients.
Does global longitudinal strain (GLS) improve early detection of myocardial dysfunction and predict mortality in adults with septic shock compared to conventional echocardiography?
Systematic Review (n=416)
Does global longitudinal strain (GLS) improve early detection of myocardial dysfunction and predict mortality in adults with septic shock compared to conventional echocardiography?
GLS is a promising and sensitive tool for the early detection of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction and mortality risk stratification in ICU patients.
GLS may enable earlier SIMD detection in septic shock despite preserved LVEF; leaves open whether routine use improves outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction (SIMD) is a common and reversible complication of septic shock that is often underdiagnosed due to the limitations of conventional echocardiography. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) derived from speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) may provide a more sensitive and load-independent marker of early myocardial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of GLS in patients with septic shock in the ICU. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guideline and published on PROSPERO (CRD420251034407). Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane) were searched without time or language restrictions (Sept-Oct 2024). Eligible studies included adults with sepsis or septic shock studied with GLS. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 24 studies, five studies were included (416 patients). GLS was significantly reduced in patients with septic shock, even with preserved LVEF. A GLS threshold between -13% and -15% predicted mortality and correlated with biomarkers (troponin I, NT-proBNP, lactate). Compared to LVEF, GLS showed higher sensitivity in detecting subclinical dysfunction and in monitoring myocardial recovery. GLS in a single view (apical four-chamber) was comparable to full-view assessment, suggesting feasibility at the bedside. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number and observational nature of the available studies, GLS appears to be a promising tool for the early detection and monitoring of myocardial dysfunction in septic shock. Its integration into ICU practice could improve risk stratification and individualized treatment. Further multicenter studies are needed to standardize the cut-offs and confirm the clinical benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garo et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review in septic shock (n=416). Global longitudinal strain (GLS) vs. LVEF was evaluated on mortality and subclinical myocardial dysfunction. Global longitudinal strain was significantly reduced in septic shock, with a threshold between -13% and -15% predicting mortality and showing higher sensitivity than LVEF for subclinical dysfunction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: