4.7 Article

Sex difference in the age-related decline of global longitudinal strain of left ventricle

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-42286-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an important indicator for assessing subclinical myocardial dysfunction. The effect of aging on left ventricular dysfunction differs between males and females, with females having a higher risk of decreased GLS as they age.
Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a valuable indicator of subclinical myocardial dysfunction. Whether the effect of aging on subclinical left ventricular dysfunction is sex-specific is not well documented. This study aimed to identify age-related changes in GLS according to sex in patients with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). In this cross-sectional, single-center cohort study in Korea, participants who underwent GLS measurement using 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography were retrospectively reviewed, and participants with normal LVEF (>= 55%) without documented cardiovascular disease were included. Reduced GLS was defined as absolute values below 18%. Of 682 study participants (mean age, 58; female, 51.5%), 209 (30.6%) had reduced GLS. Females with reduced GLS were older than those with normal GLS (68 vs. 58 years, P < 0.001); with no difference of age in males (55 vs. 57 years; P = 0.265). Univariate analysis showed age to correlate significantly with reduced GLS only in female (r = - 0.364; P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, female > 66 years old had significantly higher risk of reduced GLS (Odds ratio 2.66; 95% CI 1.22-5.76; P = 0.014). In participants with normal LVEF, GLS decreased with age in females but not in males. Particularly, females aged 66 years and older had a significantly higher risk of reduced GLS. These findings suggest that GLS could be a valuable parameter for assessing subclinical cardiac dysfunction, especially in older females.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据