Global longitudinal strain assessment in contrast-enhanced echocardiography in breast cancer patients: a feasibility study.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101159952 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1476-7120 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14767120 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: London, UK : BioMed Central, 2003-
    • Subject Terms:
      Breast Neoplasms* ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left*/diagnostic imaging ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left*/etiology ; Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional*/methods; Humans ; Female ; Adult ; Middle Aged ; Ventricular Function, Left ; Stroke Volume ; Feasibility Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Global Longitudinal Strain ; Echocardiography/methods
    • Abstract:
      Background: Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS) obtained from two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) can reflect cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction in breast cancer (BC) patients, however, the accuracy and reproducibility of 2D-STE are restricted due to poor image quality.
      Methods: Between January 2019 and October 2021, 160 consecutive BC patients aged ≥ 18 years were recruited. The 160 BC patients (mean age: 48.41 ± 9.93 years, 100% women) underwent both 2D-STE and Contrast-enhanced echocardiography (CEcho), 125 of whom were included in the measurement of GLS. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of 2D-STE and CEcho-STE. Correlation (r) was calculated using Pearson correlation. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
      Results: Among 160 BC patients, more segments were recognized by CEcho-STE than by 2D-STE (2,771, 99.53% vs. 2,440, 84.72%). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained by 2D was lower than CEcho (61.75 ± 6.59% vs. 64.14 ± 5.97%, P < 0.0001). The GLS obtained by 2D-STE was lower than CEcho-STE (-21.74 ± 2.77% vs. -26.79 ± 4.30%, P = 0.001). The ICC of the intraobserver and interobserver agreements in the CEcho-STE group was lower than that in the 2D-STE group. GLS measurements were in good agreement between the 2D-STE and CEcho-STE groups (r = 0.773).
      Conclusions: CEcho can overcome some imaging limitations and recognize more segments than 2D, which may provide an LVEF and GLS closer to the true value. Based on AutoStrain, CEcho-STE may serve as a complementary method for those with poor image quality.
      (© 2023. The Author(s).)
    • References:
      J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Nov;26(11):1282-9. (PMID: 24044977)
      Echocardiography. 2015 Mar;32(3):496-507. (PMID: 25059625)
      JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 1;4(10):1007-1018. (PMID: 31433450)
      Heart. 2003 Dec;89(12):1394-7. (PMID: 14617543)
      J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2021 Feb;34(2):136-145.e2. (PMID: 33293202)
      J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 2;77(4):392-401. (PMID: 33220426)
      J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jun 16;65(23):2511-22. (PMID: 26065990)
      J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14. (PMID: 25559473)
      Am J Cardiol. 1999 Jan 15;83(2):211-7. (PMID: 10073823)
      J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Oct;27(10):1029-40. (PMID: 25063466)
      JACC CardioOncol. 2022 Apr 19;4(2):183-191. (PMID: 35818555)
      Oncologist. 2018 Oct;23(10):1153-1161. (PMID: 30120159)
      Am J Cardiol. 2013 Dec 15;112(12):1980-4. (PMID: 24075281)
      JAMA Cardiol. 2022 Mar 01;7(3):330-340. (PMID: 35138325)
      Heart Lung Circ. 2013 Dec;22(12):996-1002. (PMID: 23764145)
      JACC CardioOncol. 2021 Mar 16;3(1):1-16. (PMID: 34396303)
      Echocardiography. 2007 Nov;24(10):1073-80. (PMID: 18001361)
      J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018 Mar;31(3):297-303. (PMID: 29174339)
      Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 21;37(36):2768-2801. (PMID: 27567406)
      Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022 Apr 18;23(5):629-640. (PMID: 33624014)
      Heart Fail Clin. 2018 Oct;14(4):553-567. (PMID: 30266364)
      J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018 Mar;31(3):241-274. (PMID: 29502588)
      Am J Cardiol. 2014 Jan 15;113(2):395-401. (PMID: 24188892)
      Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2016 Jan 05;14:2. (PMID: 26729298)
      Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 Mar;10(2):194-212. (PMID: 19270054)
      Heart. 2021 Jan;107(1):18-24. (PMID: 33077502)
      Eur Heart J. 2005 Mar;26(6):607-16. (PMID: 15618026)
      Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018 Apr 24;98(16):1213-1217. (PMID: 29747306)
      J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Nov;16(11):1362-1389. (PMID: 30442736)
      Echocardiography. 2016 Jun;33(6):889-95. (PMID: 26833555)
      Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Mar;36(3):431-439. (PMID: 31720940)
      Obes Res. 1998 Sep;6 Suppl 2:51S-209S. (PMID: 9813653)
      JACC CardioOncol. 2020 Dec 15;2(5):677-689. (PMID: 34396282)
      Heart. 2020 Nov;106(22):1752-1758. (PMID: 32209616)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Autostrain; Breast cancer; Contrast-enhanced echocardiography; Left ventricular global longitudinal strain; Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20230420 Date Completed: 20230424 Latest Revision: 20240627
    • Publication Date:
      20240627
    • Accession Number:
      PMC10116775
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s12947-023-00304-w
    • Accession Number:
      37081550