Key result
Three-dimensional global longitudinal strain was significantly associated with adverse clinical events (HR 2.21) in STEMI patients, but provided less incremental prognostic value over ejection fraction compared to 2D strain.
Why the study?
3D strain and EF are expected to offer clinical utility and overcome inherent limitations of 2D strain, but their prognostic significance in STEMI required clarification.
Does 3D myocardial strain provide better prognostic value than 2D strain in patients with STEMI?
Cohort (n=545)
No
Does 3D myocardial strain provide better prognostic value than 2D strain in patients with STEMI?
Hazard Ratio: 2.21 (95% CI 1.18–4.14)
p-value: p=<0.001
3D myocardial strain does not provide incremental prognostic value over 2D strain and ejection fraction in patients with STEMI.
3D GLS adds no incremental prognostic value over 2D GLS and EF in STEMI; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional (2D) strain provides more predictive power than ejection fraction (EF) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). 3D strain and EF are also expected to have better clinical usefulness and overcome several inherent limitations of 2D strain. We aimed to clarify the prognostic significance of 3D strain analysis in patients with STEMI. METHODS: Patients who underwent successful revascularization for STEMI were retrospectively recruited. In addition to conventional parameters, 3D EF, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global area strain (GAS), as well as 2D GLS were obtained. We constructed a composite outcome consisting of all-cause death or re-hospitalization for acute heart failure or ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: Of 632 STEMI patients, 545 patients (86.2%) had a reliable 3D strain analysis. During median follow-up of 49.5 months, 55 (10.1%) patients experienced the adverse outcome. Left ventricle EF, 2D GLS, 3D EF, 3D GLS, and 3D GAS were significantly associated with poor outcomes. (all, p < 0.001) The maximum likelihood-ratio test was performed to evaluate the additional prognostic value of 2D GLS or 3D GLS over the prognostic model consisting of clinical characteristics and EF, and the likelihood ratio was 15.9 for 2D GLS (p < 0.001) and 1.49 for 3D GLS (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The predictive power of 3D strain was slightly lower than the 2D strain. Although we can obtain 3D strains, volume, and EF simultaneously in same cycle, the clinical implications of 3D strains in STEMI need to be investigated further.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=545). 3D global longitudinal strain vs. 2D global longitudinal strain and left ventricular ejection fraction was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death or re-hospitalization for acute heart failure or ventricular arrhythmia (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.18-4.14, p=<0.001). Three-dimensional global longitudinal strain was significantly associated with adverse clinical events (HR 2.21) in STEMI patients, but provided less incremental prognostic value over ejection fraction compared to 2D strain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: