2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.07.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Normal Global Longitudinal Strain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The automated algorithm traces and tracks the LV myocardium, with manual adjustments made when appropriate, and the software calculates GLS from the weighted average of the peak systolic longitudinal strain of all segments using the 17 segment model. GLS is quantified as a negative number with cutoff as −18%, and more negative as normal for this system, but based on prior literature supporting use of a cutoff of −16% as the threshold for normal, analyses were conducted with > −16% as the cutoff for normal (21)(22)(23)(24)(25). Tracking quality was assessed by the operator and over-ridden in segments with two or fewer rejected regions where the operator deemed tracking quality to be acceptable.…”
Section: Speckle Tracking Echocardiography Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The automated algorithm traces and tracks the LV myocardium, with manual adjustments made when appropriate, and the software calculates GLS from the weighted average of the peak systolic longitudinal strain of all segments using the 17 segment model. GLS is quantified as a negative number with cutoff as −18%, and more negative as normal for this system, but based on prior literature supporting use of a cutoff of −16% as the threshold for normal, analyses were conducted with > −16% as the cutoff for normal (21)(22)(23)(24)(25). Tracking quality was assessed by the operator and over-ridden in segments with two or fewer rejected regions where the operator deemed tracking quality to be acceptable.…”
Section: Speckle Tracking Echocardiography Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Possible explanations for this is that global LS is commonly reduced in patients with established cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes 29 31 but as these are present in >90% of non-HFpEF patients, this likely reduced the diagnostic accuracy of global LS. In addition, global LS has been shown to be lower in older patients 32 and our HFpEF and non-HFpEF cohort are predominantly of an older age; thus, this may have further reduced the diagnostic power of global LS. In addition, the ESC 2021 guidelines does not recommend echocardiography global LS as it has a sensitivity of 62% and 56% compared to invasive testing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Guidelines define a GLS ≤ –20% as a normal value in healthy subjects [ 26 ]. A recent meta-analysis reports that a GLS > -16% indicates significant myocardial dysfunction [ 44 ]. There are no defined GLS cut-off values for risk estimation in different cardiac pathologies, although these would be useful for prognostication, management, and future studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%