2021
DOI: 10.1111/echo.15025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Left ventricular ejection fraction and Global Longitudinal Strain variability between methodology and experience

Abstract: Almost 50 years have passed since ejection fraction (EF), mainly estimated by echocardiography, has been the mainstay of the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. The prognostic value of EF concerning the outcome and most importantly the survival justifies its critical role in the type of therapy (pharmacological, implantation of devices, or surgical interventions) indicated in different clinical scenarios. More recently, Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS)-deriving from speckle tracking echocard… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…High reproducibility of vLVEF depends on reader experience and can hence not be generalized. 44 The results of FS and LVEF measurements were contradictory in Despite the limitations of cohort size and follow-up time, our results demonstrate a high feasibility of LS also in retrospective echocardiographic datasets. Our results indicate that LS entails higher sensitivity for detecting subclinical changes in cardiac function compared to FS and LVEF.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…High reproducibility of vLVEF depends on reader experience and can hence not be generalized. 44 The results of FS and LVEF measurements were contradictory in Despite the limitations of cohort size and follow-up time, our results demonstrate a high feasibility of LS also in retrospective echocardiographic datasets. Our results indicate that LS entails higher sensitivity for detecting subclinical changes in cardiac function compared to FS and LVEF.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Visual LVEF was on the other hand assessable in 95% (347/366) of all echocardiograms. High reproducibility of vLVEF depends on reader experience and can hence not be generalized 44 . The results of FS and LVEF measurements were contradictory in 35/366 echocardiograms, which might pose a problem in clinical decision‐making.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…EF is the cornerstone of assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. 11 Calculating LV volumes and EF from 2D images by using the biplane method of modified Simpson's rule is considered more accurate and better reproducible. However, because of the geometric assumptions of this 2D method, measurements may be inaccurate if the shape of the left ventricle is abnormal or when the acquisition of the 2D images is suboptimal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…EF is the cornerstone of assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function 11 . Calculating LV volumes and EF from 2D images by using the biplane method of modified Simpson's rule is considered more accurate and better reproducible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different apical views (typically 4-chamber, 2-chamber, and apical long axis views) are obtained by different placements of the ultrasound probe relative to the heart apex [ 1 ]. The estimation process is usually laborious and time-consuming, especially when considering medical emergencies, while accuracy depends on the cardiologist’s experience in ECHO and the quality of scans [ 6 ], leading to considerable measurement variability [ 4 , 7 ]. Improving measurement precision and reliability is necessary, as it has been shown that EF and GLS values and their impairments are closely connected to patients’ prognosis and course [ 8 , 9 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%