Loading…

Layer‐specific global longitudinal strain reveals impaired cardiac function in patients with reversible ischemia

Aims Two‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) detects early signs of left ventricular dysfunction; however, it is unknown whether layer‐specific global longitudinal strain (GLS) has incremental value in diagnosis of patients with reversible ischemia assessed by single photon emissio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2018-05, Vol.35 (5), p.632-642
Main Authors: Hagemann, Christoffer E., Hoffmann, Søren, Olsen, Flemming J., Jørgensen, Peter G., Fritz‐Hansen, Thomas, Jensen, Jan S., Biering‐Sørensen, Tor
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
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:Aims Two‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) detects early signs of left ventricular dysfunction; however, it is unknown whether layer‐specific global longitudinal strain (GLS) has incremental value in diagnosis of patients with reversible ischemia assessed by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods and Results Eighty patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP), normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and no history of ischemic heart disease were retrospectively identified to have been examined by 2DSTE, SPECT, and coronary angiography (CAG). Patients with a normal SPECT constituted the control group, and patients with a positive SPECT were divided into patients with or without (true‐ or false‐ positive SPECT) significant stenosis assessed by CAG. GLS was measured for two myocardial layers (endocardial and epicardial) and as well as mid‐myocardial GLS. Patients with reversible ischemia had significantly lower GLS compared to the control group (GLSEndocardial: −19.0 ± 4.4% vs −21.4 ± 3.7%, P = .011; GLSEpicardial: −14.3 ± 2.9% vs −16.3 ± 2.9%, P = .004); GLSMid‐myocardial: −16.5 ± 3.6% vs −18.6 ± 3.2%, P = .006. This difference was even more evident in patients with a true‐positive SPECT (GLSEndocardial: −18.0 ± 4.4% vs −21.4 ± 3.7%, P 
ISSN:0742-2822
1540-8175
DOI:10.1111/echo.13830