ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019
Influence of age and sex on left ventricular diastolic strain analysis.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is atrial fibrillation in HFpEF a distinct phenotype? Insights from multiparametric MRI and circulating biomarkers.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Genetic and environmental determinants of diastolic heart function.Nature cardiovascular research · 2022Article
- The relation between obesity and left ventricular diastolic function in young people: A cross-sectional study.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2021Article
- Early Tracking of Radiation-Induced Cardiotoxicity: Paradigm, Pragmatism, and Possibilities.JACC. CardioOncology · 2021Article
- Longitudinal evaluation of cardiovascular function in six healthy cats aged 1-8 years.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Diastolic strain imaging: a new non-invasive tool to detect subclinical myocardial dysfunction in early cardiac allograft rejection.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Speckle tracking analysis (STE) of the left ventricle offers a new method to assess left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. LV diastolic strain measurements offer a non-invasive, global and direct measure of LV diastolic function. However, there is little data on normal values and the influence of anthropomorphic factors which is crucial in clinical practice for new techniques. The aims of this study were to formulate reference values for LV diastolic strain rate, elucidate effects of age and sex on LV diastolic strain analysis and compare STE measurements with conventional LV diastolic measurements. One-hundred-forty-seven healthy subjects aged 20-72 years (≥ 28 subjects per age decade) were prospectively included (Mean age 44 ± 13.7 years, 50% female) and examined with electrocardiography and 2D-echocardiography, including speckle tracking. Left ventricular peak early diastolic strain rate (Sre) was measured in the apical windows, using STE. Men had significantly lower LV Sre values than women (1.02 ± 0.22 vs. 1.18 ± 0.23, p value < 0.001). Left ventricular Sre was inversely associated with age, with values decreasing with ageing. An inverse relation was also found with blood pressure and body surface area. Linear regression analysis showed that LV Sre was independently associated with both age and sex. A multivariable linear regression analysis for LV Sre with conventional LV diastolic variables accounted for 70.9% of the variation of LV Sre, showing good model performance. Reference values for LV Sre are reported and found to be both age- and sex-dependent. Therefore we recommend age- and sex-specific references values to be used in daily clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.