4.0 Article

Comparison of global and regional myocardial strains in patients with heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction vs hypertension vs age-matched control

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR ULTRASOUND
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12947-020-00223-0

关键词

Global strain; Regional strain; HFpEF; Hypertension; Speckle-tracking echocardiography

资金

  1. Samsung Medical Center grant [CRL109-61-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background With an increasing clinical importance of the treatment of the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it is important to be certain of the diagnosis of HF. We investigated global and regional left ventricular (LV) strains using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in patients with HFpEF and compared those parameters with that of patients with hypertension and normal subjects. Methods Peak longitudinal, circumferential and radial strains were assessed globally and regionally for each study groups using STE. Diastolic strain rate was also determined. Results There were 50 patients in HFpEF group, 56 patients in hypertension group and 46 age-matched normal subjects. In patients with HFpEF, global peak longitudinal, circumferential and radial strain and strain rate were reduced compared to both hypertension patients and normal controls (- 15.5 +/- 5.3 vs - 17.7 +/- 3.1 and - 19.9 +/- 2.0; - 9.7 +/- 2.2 vs - 19.3 +/- 3.1 and - 20.5 +/- 3.3; 17.7 +/- 8.2 vs 38.4 +/- 12.4 and 43.6 +/- 11.9, respectively, P < 0.001, for all). The diagnostic performance of global circumferential strain to predict the HFpEF was greatest among strain parameters (area under the curve = 0.997). Conclusions In the speckle tracking echocardiography, impaired peak global strain and homogeneously reduced regional strain was observed in HFpEF patients compared to the hypertension patients and normal subjects in decreasing order. This can provide early information on the initiation of LV deformation of HFpEF in patients with hypertension or normal subjects.

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

4.0
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