ArticleESC heart failure2021
Left ventricular strain-curve morphology to distinguish between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left ventricular strain and hemodynamic forces from cine CMR for detecting constrictive physiology in pericarditis.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Prognostic implications of multiple chamber longitudinal strains and myocardial work in restrictive cardiomyopathy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Pericardial adhesion and performance of hemodynamically significant constrictive pericarditis using cine magnetic resonance feature tracking.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Epicardial adipose tissue and pericardial constraint in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- A novel multi-task machine learning classifier for rare disease patterning using cardiac strain imaging data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Age- and sex-specific reference values of biventricular strain and strain rate derived from a large cohort of healthy Chinese adults: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Article
- Case Report: "Gourd-Shaped" Heart Strangled by Localized Annular Calcification of the Left Ventricle: A Rare Case of Constrictive Pericarditis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Left ventricular strain-curve morphology to distinguish between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo distinguish between constrictive pericarditis (CP) and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) left ventricle (LV) diastolic time-strain curve patterns and myocardial strain. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 32 CP patients, 27 RCM patients, and 25 control subjects were examined by CMR-FT and analysed for global strain, segmental strain, and LV time-strain curve patterns in the longitudinal, circumferential, and radial directions. Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) strain imaging was performed in some cases. The peak global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) of the RCM group were lower than those of the CP group. GLS [median (interquartile range) CP vs. RCM: -11.15 (-12.85, -9.35) vs. -6.5 (-8.75, -4.85), P < 0.001] and GCS (CP vs. RCM: -16.89 ± 5.11 vs. -13.37 ± 5.79, P < 0.001). In circumferential and radial directions, the strain ratios of the LV lateral/septal wall (LW/SW) of the CP group were significantly lower than those of the RCM group at the basal and mid segments. The CS ratio of LW/SW at the basal segment [CP vs. RCM: 0.95 (0.85, 1.25) vs. 1.43 (1.18, 1.89), P < 0.001] and mid segment [CP vs. RCM: 1.05 (0.92, 1.15) vs. 1.18 (1.06, 1.49), P = 0.026]. The RS ratio of LW/SW at the basal segment [CP vs. RCM: 0.97 (0.76, 1.37) vs. 1.55 (1.08, 2.31), P = 0.006] and mid segment [CP vs. RCM: 0.95 (0.70, 1.28) vs. 1.79 (1.32, 2.92), P < 0.001]. In the longitudinal and circumferential directions, the characteristic 'plateau' pattern of time-strain curves could be seen in the CP but not in the RCM during the diastole. The GCS ratio of 0-50%/50-75% diastolic period of the CP was higher than that of the RCM [CP vs. RCM: 17.01 (8.67, 23.75) vs. 5.38 (1.93, 11.24), P = 0.001], while the GCS ratio of 50-75%/75-100% diastolic period was lower than that of the RCM [CP vs. RCM: 0.36 (0.15, 1.67) vs. 1.12 (0.70, 5.58), P < 0.001]. The peak GLS (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 78%) and the GCS ratio of 0-50%/50-75% diastolic period (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 73%) had higher differential diagnosis value.
conclusionsThe CMR-FT could distinctly differentiate CP from RCM based on LV myocardial strain and LV time-strain curve patterns. The characteristic 'plateau' pattern of the time-strain curve is specific for CP and not RCM and this curve can also be duplicated by STE.
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.