Key result
Semiautomated LVGLS was superior to fully automated LVGLS in predicting the composite of all-cause death and graft rejection in heart transplant recipients (AUC 0.887 vs 0.617, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Measuring LVGLS in heart transplant patients is time-consuming and operator-dependent, prompting evaluation of automated strain software.
Does automated or semiautomated LVGLS measurement accurately assess systolic function and predict adverse events compared to manual LVGLS in heart transplant recipients?
Cohort (n=286)
No
Does automated or semiautomated LVGLS measurement accurately assess systolic function and predict adverse events compared to manual LVGLS in heart transplant recipients?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.617 (95% CI 0.557-0.674)
p-value: p=<0.001
Semiautomated LVGLS measurement offers a rapid, reproducible alternative to manual measurement that effectively predicts adverse events in heart transplant recipients, outperforming fully automated methods.
Semiautomated LVGLS may aid systolic assessment in heart transplant recipients; leaves open prospective validation for routine use.
Aims Left ventricular longitudinal strain (LVGLS) is a robust parameter to predict adverse events of heart transplanted (HTx) patients. However, measuring LVGLS is time consuming and operator-dependent. Thus, we investigated whether automated strain software applied to measure LVGLS possess the feasibility, reproducibility and prognostic values in HTx patients.Methods 286 heart-transplanted patients who had comprehensive echocardiography was included. LVGLS was obtained from the same apical images by three different methods: fully automated LVGLS(Auto-Strain), semiautomated LVGLS (automated with manual editing) and manual LVGLS. Patients were followed up and primary composite end point (defined as all-cause death and rejection) was recorded.Results Fully automated measurements were feasible in 277subjects (96.8%). Analysis time for automated LVGLS (27.7 ± 2.8 s/patients) and semiautomated LVGLS (237.4 ± 41.0 s/patients) were shorter than manual LVGLS (440.4 ± 65 s/patients). Semiautomated LVGLS had a stronger correlation with manual LVGLS than automated LVGLS (r = 0.854 vs 0.654. P < 0.001), and there were smaller disagreements between Semiautomated LVGLS and manual LVGLS (bias:0.79, LOA:2.78) than automated LVGLS and manual LVGLS (bias:2.72, LOA:3.98). During a median follow-up of 51 months [35.0-66.5], 35 patients experienced end point events. Automated LVGLS can detect abnormal systolic function and predict adverse events of HTx patients, while the detecting and predicting ability of semiautomated LVGLS is greater.Conclusions Fully automated LVGLS could provide rapid and reproducible assessment of HTx patients’ graft function, but semiautomated LVGLS is superior to automated LVGLS in detecting abnormal systolic function and predicting adverse events, making it possible applying automated software in clinical routine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart transplant recipients (n=286). Automated and semiautomated Left Ventricular Longitudinal Strain (LVGLS) measurement vs. Manual LVGLS measurement was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death and graft rejection (AUC 0.617, 95% CI 0.557-0.674, p=<0.001). Semiautomated LVGLS was superior to fully automated LVGLS in predicting the composite of all-cause death and graft rejection in heart transplant recipients (AUC 0.887 vs 0.617, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: