Key result
Discharge septal E′ plus LA strain-to-volume ratio predicts post-STEMI heart failure better than LVEF or GLS.
Why the study?
A subset of STEMI patients develops HF after reperfusion therapy even with preserved or mildly reduced LVEF, leaving uncertain whether integrative assessment of LV diastolic function and LA strain-to-volume ratio provides incremental prognostic value beyond LVEF and GLS.
Does integrative assessment of LV diastolic function and the left atrial strain-to-volume ratio improve prediction of the composite 6-month heart failure endpoint compared to conventional and advanced systolic indices in STEMI patients?
Cohort (n=472)
Does integrative assessment of LV diastolic function and the left atrial strain-to-volume ratio improve prediction of the composite 6-month heart failure endpoint compared to conventional and advanced systolic indices in STEMI patients?
Early integrative assessment of LV diastolic abnormalities (septal E′) and left atrial strain-to-volume ratio (PALS/LAV) at discharge significantly improves 6-month heart failure risk stratification after STEMI compared to LVEF and GLS.
May enhance post-STEMI HF risk stratification at discharge; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before adoption.
Background Despite contemporary reperfusion therapy, a subset of STEMI patients develops heart failure (HF) during follow-up, including those with preserved or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), suggesting mechanisms beyond global systolic dysfunction. Purpose To evaluate whether integrative assessment of LV diastolic function and the left atrial (LA) strain-to-volume ratio provides incremental prognostic value for 6-month HF beyond conventional and advanced systolic indices, including LVEF and global longitudinal strain (GLS). Methods We analyzed 472 consecutive STEMI patients from the prospective registry who underwent comprehensive discharge echocardiography and completed 6-month follow-up (61±12 years, 26% women, LVEF 48±9%). The composite 6-month HF endpoint (HF hospitalization, emergency visit for HF, or NYHA ≥II) occurred in 59 patients (12.5%). Assessed parameters included LVEF, GLS, global work efficiency (GWE), post-systolic shortening (PSD), septal E′, LA strain-to-volume ratio (PALS/LAV), and TRVmax. Two multivariable logistic models were constructed: Model A (septal E′, PALS/LAV, GWE, PSD, TRVmax) and Model B (septal E′ and PALS/LAV). Internal validation was performed using 1000-sample bootstrap resampling; discrimination was assessed by ROC analysis. Results In univariable analysis, septal E′ (OR 0.69, p<0.001), PALS/LAV (OR 0.04, p=0.001), PSD (OR 1.009 per ms, p=0.024), GWE (OR 0.96 per %, p=0.009), and TRVmax (OR 2.80, p=0.005) predicted 6-month HF, whereas LVEF and GLS showed modest discrimination (AUC 0.57 and 0.59). In multivariable analysis, only septal E′ and PALS/LAV remained independently associated with HF. Model A achieved AUC 0.72 (95% CI 0.63–0.81) and Model B 0.73 (95% CI 0.65–0.81). Model B outperformed LVEF (p=0.0287) and GLS (p=0.0338) (Figure 1). Conclusions Six-month HF after STEMI is primarily driven by discharge LV diastolic abnormalities and impaired LA structural–functional integrity rather than global systolic dysfunction, even in patients with preserved or mildly reduced LVEF. Early integrative diastolic–atrial assessment may enhance post-STEMI risk stratification beyond conventional, deformation-based, and myocardial work-derived systolic measures.Figure 1Graphical abstract
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vratonjic et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=472). Discharge LV diastolic function (septal E′) and LA strain-to-volume ratio (PALS/LAV) vs. Conventional and advanced systolic indices (LVEF and GLS) was evaluated on Composite 6-month heart failure endpoint (HF hospitalization, emergency visit for HF, or NYHA ≥II) (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.81, p=0.0287 vs LVEF). Combined discharge septal E′ and LA strain-to-volume ratio predicted 6-month HF post-STEMI (AUC 0.73; 95% CI 0.65–0.81), outperforming LVEF (p=0.0287) and GLS (p=0.0338).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: