Left ventricular global longitudinal strain using a novel fully automated method: A head-to-head comparison with a manual layer-specific strain and establishment of normal reference ranges
International Journal of Cardiology, ISSN: 0167-5273, Vol: 403, Page: 131886
2024
- 2Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
A novel automated method for measuring left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) along the endocardium has advantages in terms of its rapid application and excellent reproducibility. However, it remains unclear whether the available normal range for conventional GLS using the manual method is applicable to the automated GLS method. This study aimed to compare automated GLS head-to-head with manual layer-specific GLS, and to identify whether a specialized normal reference range for automated GLS is needed and explore the main determinants. In total, 1683 healthy volunteers (men, 43%; age, 18–80 years) were prospectively enrolled from 55 collaborating laboratories. LV GLS was measured using both manual layer-specific and automated methods. Automated GLS was higher than endocardial, mid-myocardial, and epicardial GLS. Women had a higher automated GLS than men. GLS had no significant age dependency in men, but first increased and then decreased with age in women. Accordingly, sex- and age-specific normal ranges for automated GLS were proposed. Moreover, GLS appeared to have different burdens in relation to dominant determinants between the sexes. GLS in men showed no dominant determinants; however, GLS in women correlated with age, body mass index, and heart rate. Using the novel automated method, was LV GLS higher than when using the manual GLS method. The normal ranges of automated GLS stratified according to sex and age were provided, with dominant determinants showing sex disparities that require full consideration in clinical practice.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527324003322; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.131886; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85186086049&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38382850; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167527324003322; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.131886
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know