Global longitudinal strain is a more reproducible measure of left ventricular function than ejection fraction regardless of echocardiographic training.
Acute Coronary Syndrome
/ diagnosis
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Cardiology
/ education
Clinical Competence
Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Education, Medical, Graduate
/ methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results
Stroke Volume
/ physiology
Systole
Time Factors
Ventricular Function, Left
/ physiology
Echocardiographic training
Global longitudinal strain
Left ventricular ejection fraction
Journal
Cardiovascular ultrasound
ISSN: 1476-7120
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Ultrasound
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101159952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2019
02 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
13
06
2019
accepted:
23
08
2019
entrez:
4
9
2019
pubmed:
4
9
2019
medline:
10
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an established method for evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle tracking echocardiography seems to be an important additive method for evaluation of LV function with improved reproducibility compared with LVEF. Our aim was to compare reproducibility of GLS and LVEF between an expert and trainee both as echocardiographic examiner and analyst. Forty-seven patients with recent Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) underwent echocardiographic examination by both an expert echocardiographer and a trainee. Both echocardiographers, blinded for clinical data and each other's findings, performed image analysis for evaluation of intra- and inter- observer variability. GLS was measured using speckle tracking echocardiography. LVEF was calculated by Simpson's biplane method. The trainee measured a GLS of - 19.4% (±3.5%) and expert - 18.7% (±3.2%) with an Intra class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.89 (0.74-0.95). LVEF by trainee was 50.3% (±8.2%) and by expert 53.6% (±8.6%), ICC coefficient was 0.63 (0.32-0.80). For GLS the systematic difference was 0.21% (- 4.58-2.64) vs. 4.08% (- 20.78-12.62) for LVEF. GLS is a more reproducible method for evaluation of LV function than LVEF regardless of echocardiographic training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an established method for evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle tracking echocardiography seems to be an important additive method for evaluation of LV function with improved reproducibility compared with LVEF. Our aim was to compare reproducibility of GLS and LVEF between an expert and trainee both as echocardiographic examiner and analyst.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty-seven patients with recent Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) underwent echocardiographic examination by both an expert echocardiographer and a trainee. Both echocardiographers, blinded for clinical data and each other's findings, performed image analysis for evaluation of intra- and inter- observer variability. GLS was measured using speckle tracking echocardiography. LVEF was calculated by Simpson's biplane method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The trainee measured a GLS of - 19.4% (±3.5%) and expert - 18.7% (±3.2%) with an Intra class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.89 (0.74-0.95). LVEF by trainee was 50.3% (±8.2%) and by expert 53.6% (±8.6%), ICC coefficient was 0.63 (0.32-0.80). For GLS the systematic difference was 0.21% (- 4.58-2.64) vs. 4.08% (- 20.78-12.62) for LVEF.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
GLS is a more reproducible method for evaluation of LV function than LVEF regardless of echocardiographic training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31477137
doi: 10.1186/s12947-019-0168-9
pii: 10.1186/s12947-019-0168-9
pmc: PMC6720884
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Subventions
Organisme : EkstraStiftelsen Helse og Rehabilitering
ID : n.a
Organisme : Sørlandet Hospital, Arendal
ID : n.a.
Références
Circulation. 2003 Feb 25;107(7):1068-89
pubmed: 12600924
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005 Dec;18(12):1440-63
pubmed: 16376782
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2007 Aug 30;5:27
pubmed: 17760964
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008 Nov;21(11):1244-50
pubmed: 18992675
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Jan;2(1):24-33
pubmed: 19356529
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Jan;2(1):80-4
pubmed: 19356538
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 11;54(7):618-24
pubmed: 19660692
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Nov;1(3):189-96, 2 p following 196
pubmed: 19808542
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Sep;2(5):356-64
pubmed: 19808623
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009 Nov;22(11):1232-8
pubmed: 19815383
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Jan;3(1):15-23
pubmed: 19820202
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 Dec;10(8):893-905
pubmed: 19889658
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010 Jul;11(6):501-8
pubmed: 20185525
Am J Cardiol. 2010 May 1;105(9):1212-8
pubmed: 20403468
Heart. 2010 Oct;96(19):1550-6
pubmed: 20643662
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Mar;24(3):277-313
pubmed: 21338865
Echocardiography. 2011 May;28(5):556-63
pubmed: 21535118
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jun 11;61(23):2365-73
pubmed: 23563128
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Aug;6(8):841-50
pubmed: 23850251
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jan;7(1):58-65
pubmed: 24186963
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Mar;27(3):292-301
pubmed: 24440110
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 May;27(5):512-9
pubmed: 24612899
Heart. 2014 Nov;100(21):1673-80
pubmed: 24860005
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Aug;27(8):880-7
pubmed: 24891261
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jan;16(1):1-11
pubmed: 25525063
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 21;37(36):2768-2801
pubmed: 27567406
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 May;10(5):518-522
pubmed: 27743951
Echocardiography. 2017 Mar;34(3):365-370
pubmed: 28185312
Eur Heart J. 1997 Mar;18(3):507-13
pubmed: 9076390