CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Oxidative Stress and Cardiovascular Risk: Obesity, Diabetes, Smoking, and Pollution: Part 3 of a 3-Part Series ACC Clinical Bulletin Focuses on Cardiac Implications of Coronavirus (COVID-19) CSC Expert Consensus on Principles of Clinical Management of Patients with Severe Emergent Cardiovascular Diseases during the COVID-19 Epidemic COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease Hemodynamic Response to Nitroprusside in Patients With Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction Inflammation: A New Target For CAD Treatment and Prevention Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

Original Research2017 Aug 22;70(8):942-954.

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Geometry as a Confounder When Assessing Ventricular Systolic Function: Comparison Between Ejection Fraction and Strain

Stokke TM, Hasselberg NE, Remme EW et al. Keywords: left ventricular geometry; mathematical modeling; myocardial strain

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and reduced myocardial strain are reported in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and more.


OBJECTIVES - The authors performed a combined mathematical and echocardiographic study to understand the inconsistencies between EF and strains.


METHODS - An analytical equation showing the relationship between EF and the 4 parameters, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), wall thickness, and short-axis diameter, was derived from an elliptical LV model. The equation was validated by measuring the 4 parameters by echocardiography in 100 subjects with EF ranging from 16% to 72% and comparing model-predicted EF with measured EF. The effect of the different parameters on EF was explored in the model and compared with findings in the patients.


RESULTS - Calculated EF had very good agreement with measured EF (r = 0.95). The model showed that GCS contributes more than twice as much to EF than GLS. A significant reduction of GLS could be compensated by a small increase of GCS or wall thickness or reduced diameter. The model further demonstrated how EF can be maintained in ventricles with increased wall thickness or reduced diameter, despite reductions in both longitudinal and circumferential shortening. This was consistent with similar EF in 20 control subjects and 20 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with increased wall thickness and reductions in both circumferential and longitudinal shortening (all p < 0.01).


CONCLUSIONS - Reduced deformation despite preserved EF can be explained through geometric factors. Due to geometric confounders, strain better reflects systolic function in patients with preserved EF.


Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top