Key result
Decreasing RR-corrected GLS is linked to ~16% higher mortality in HFrEF patients with AF.
Why the study?
Quantification of systolic function in patients with atrial fibrillation is challenging and the superiority of RR interval-corrected global longitudinal strain in HFrEF patients with AF was unknown.
Does RR interval-corrected global longitudinal strain (GLSc) improve prediction of all-cause mortality compared to uncorrected GLS or LVEF in patients with HFrEF and atrial fibrillation?
Population
151 HFrEF patients with AF during echocardiographic examination
Comparison
RR interval-corrected GLS vs uncorrected GLS and LVEF
Design
Cohort study
Follow-up
Median 2.7 years
Authors
Loading...
GLSc may refine mortality risk stratification in HFrEF with AF; leaves open its clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
Cohort (n=151)
Does RR interval-corrected global longitudinal strain (GLSc) improve prediction of all-cause mortality compared to uncorrected GLS or LVEF in patients with HFrEF and atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 1.16 (95% CI 1.02–1.22)
p-value: p=0.014
RR interval-corrected global longitudinal strain (GLSc) is superior to uncorrected GLS and LVEF for predicting all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF and atrial fibrillation.
Modin et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Systolic heart failure and atrial fibrillation (n=151). RR interval-corrected peak global longitudinal strain (GLSc) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.22, p=0.014). Decreasing RR interval-corrected global longitudinal strain was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients with AF (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02-1.22; P=0.014).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: