ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2024
Acute global longitudinal strain evaluation in patients with subacute to chronic chest pain: A pilot, observational study.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) imaging is a multifaceted modality that has been utilized in various fields of clinical cardiology in the recent past; however, its implementation for the assessment of ischemia has been limited. Objectives: This study aimed to document the functional changes in GLS secondary to acute myocardial ischemia in patients with chronic chest pain. Methods: In this unblinded, single-center, investigator-initiated, prospective pilot study, the functional changes in GLS at baseline, during, and immediately following coronary percutaneous intervention were monitored in 10 ambulatory patients who underwent elective catheterization. The exclusion criteria included a low ejection fraction, or a history of chemoradiation, myopathy, and congenital heart disease. Results: The average GLS at baseline, during the balloon intervention (BI), and 1-2 min after BI was -15.4 % ± 3.3 %, -10.2 % ± 3.6 %, and -16.1 % ± 4.2 %, respectively. The average GLS decreased significantly by 5.1 % (95 % CI, -7.9 % to -2.3; P = 0.0013) from baseline to BI, increased by 6.3 % (95 % CI, 3.7 % to 8.9 %; P < 0.001) from BI to immediately post-BI, and increased by 0.7 % from baseline to post-BI (95 % CI, -0.4 % to 2.7 %; P = 0.161). Conclusion: Patients undergoing BI showed a significant decrease in the average GLS within 1-2 min of BI, with GLS returning to baseline subsequently, clearly demonstrating the efficacy of the modality and the clinical significance of data obtained. These functional changes replicate cardiac perfusion to the segments supplied by respective vessels and its effect with reperfusion or ballooning. The slight increase in GLS from baseline to post-intervention was not statistically significant, which could be attributed to the confounding factors. Analyzing our data, we can safely conclude that GLS is potentially a sensitive, temporal, and quantitative tool for identifying patients with acute ischemia with its limitations and need for further perfection of this modality. Therefore, GLS assessments on 2D echo can be used for risk stratification of patients with subacute to chronic chest pain concerning for ischemia in addition to EKG, troponins and other data obtained by non-invasive testing and evaluation.
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.