Key result
CT-GLS correlates strongly with Echo-GLS but systematically underestimates strain by ~1.6 percentage points.
Why the study?
While several studies have explored deriving left ventricular global longitudinal strain from cardiac computed tomography (CT-GLS), its agreement with standard echocardiographic GLS (Echo-GLS) and the magnitude of inherent modality-related biases required precise characterisation.
Does cardiac computed tomography-derived left ventricular global longitudinal strain correlate and agree with echocardiography-derived global longitudinal strain in patients undergoing myocardial function assessment?
Meta-Analysis (n=356)
Does cardiac computed tomography-derived left ventricular global longitudinal strain correlate and agree with echocardiography-derived global longitudinal strain in patients undergoing myocardial function assessment?
CT-derived left ventricular global longitudinal strain strongly correlates with echocardiography-derived strain but systematically underestimates its magnitude by 1.56%, requiring modality-specific reference values in clinical practice.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CT-GLS requires modality-specific reference values due to underestimation; confirms strong correlation with Echo-GLS across pooled studies.
Background Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS) is increasingly recognised as a sensitive marker of myocardial dysfunction beyond ejection fraction. While echocardiography remains the standard modality for GLS assessment, several studies have explored the feasibility of deriving GLS from cardiac computed tomography (CT-GLS). However, the agreement between CT-GLS and echocardiographic GLS (Echo-GLS) and the magnitude of inherent modality-related biases require precise characterisation. This quantitative synthesis evaluates both directional correlation and absolute agreement to guide clinical interpretation. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed up to 15 February 2026 to identify studies comparing CT-GLS and Echo-GLS. Correlation coefficients were pooled using Fisher's Z transformation and back-transformed to r for reporting. Mean differences (MD) were pooled to quantify systematic bias between modalities. Both analyses used random-effects REML models. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I² and τ² statistics. Results Four studies comprising 356 patients were included. Methodological heterogeneity in CT analysis was noted: three studies utilised feature-tracking algorithms, whereas one employed manual perimeter tracing. The pooled correlation was r = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.72–0.82; I² = 14.5%; p < 0.001). A systematic underestimation of absolute GLS magnitude by CT was observed, with a pooled MD of −1.56% (95% CI: −2.12% to −1.00%; I² = 63.6%; p < 0.001). Conclusions CT-GLS demonstrates a strong correlation with Echo-GLS. However, CT systematically underestimates GLS magnitude by approximately 1.6%, a bias that may be clinically relevant given the narrow diagnostic thresholds used in practice. These findings suggest that modality-specific reference values should be used when interpreting CT-derived GLS. Nonetheless, when echocardiographic data are unavailable, CT-GLS may serve as an alternative provided the systematic underestimation is taken into account.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lopez-Arevalo et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Myocardial dysfunction (n=356). Cardiac computed tomography-derived global longitudinal strain (CT-GLS) vs. Echocardiography-derived global longitudinal strain (Echo-GLS) was evaluated on Correlation and systematic bias (mean difference) in left ventricular global longitudinal strain between CT and echocardiography (MD -1.56%, 95% CI -2.12% to -1.00%, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: