Key result
Left ventricular mechanical dispersion (Rho=-0.48, p<0.001) and left atrial reservoir strain (Rho=0.40, p<0.001) were superior to global longitudinal strain for predicting peak VO2 in HFpEF.
Why the study?
Data are conflicting regarding whether GLS is associated with peak VO2 in HFpEF, and few studies have evaluated deformation parameters like left atrial reservoir strain or left ventricular mechanical dispersion.
Do left ventricular mechanical dispersion and left atrial reservoir strain better predict peak VO2 compared to global longitudinal strain in patients with HFpEF?
Cohort (n=74)
Blinded examiner
Do left ventricular mechanical dispersion and left atrial reservoir strain better predict peak VO2 compared to global longitudinal strain in patients with HFpEF?
Effect estimate: Rho -0.48 for MD, Rho 0.40 for LA reservoir strain
p-value: p=< 0.001
Left ventricular mechanical dispersion and left atrial reservoir strain are superior to global longitudinal strain for predicting exercise capacity (peak VO2) in patients across different stages of HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support mechanical dispersion and LA strain for exercise capacity assessment in HFpEF; leaves open prospective validation versus GLS.
Hortegal et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=74). Left ventricular mechanical dispersion and left atrial reservoir strain vs. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) was evaluated on Peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) (Rho -0.48 for MD, Rho 0.40 for LA reservoir strain, p=< 0.001). Left ventricular mechanical dispersion (Rho=-0.48, p<0.001) and left atrial reservoir strain (Rho=0.40, p<0.001) were superior to global longitudinal strain for predicting peak VO2 in HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: