Coronary slow flow and its correlation with reduced left ventricle global longitudinal strain: a case-control study

Coronary slow flow (CSF) often links to inflammation and endothelial function disturbance. While conventional ejection fraction measurements fall short in identifying myocardial dysfunction, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) has shown superior efficacy in this regard. Our study ai...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Echo research and practice 2024-01, Vol.11 (1), p.2-2, Article 2
Main Authors: Shereef, Ahmed Shawky, Abdelmajeed, Mohamed Gamal, Alshair, Mohamad Hossam, El-Dosouky, Ibtesam Ibrahim, Khalil, Wael Ali, Wageeh, Shaimaa, Shehata, Islam Elsayed
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Angina pectoris
Blood pressure
Body mass index
Cardiovascular disease
Coronary angiography
Coronary slow flow
Coronary vessels
Doppler effect
Echocardiography
Ejection fraction
Females
Flow velocity
Heart attacks
Hypertension
Intubation
LV strain
Males
Medical imaging
Myocardial dysfunction
Ultrasonic imaging
Vein & artery diseases
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Coronary slow flow (CSF) often links to inflammation and endothelial function disturbance. While conventional ejection fraction measurements fall short in identifying myocardial dysfunction, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) has shown superior efficacy in this regard. Our study aimed to explore subclinical left ventricular systolic dysfunction by assessing LV GLS in patients diagnosed with coronary slow flow (CSF). The study included sixty patients with CSF and sixty control individuals without CSF. Coronary angiography employed the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame count (TFC) to identify CSF. LV GLS values were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Significantly reduced LV GLS was evident in the CSF group compared to the control group (- 16.18 ± 1.25 vs. - 19.34 ± 1.33, p 
ISSN:2055-0464
2055-0464
DOI:10.1186/s44156-023-00037-6