Skip to main content

Table 6 Prognostic values of 3D strain

From: A review of current trends in three-dimensional analysis of left ventricular myocardial strain

Author
Year
(Ref. #)
n Etiology 2DSTE 3DSTE Events Remarks
Chang 2014 [23] 200 Diverse Not described Toshiba HF hospitalization or CD
(n = 32)
1) All 3D global strains were associated with outcomes.
2) 3D GLS and 3D GRS had an incremental value over 3D LVEF.
Nagata 2015 [25] 104 Asymptomatic severe AS with preserved LVEF (> 50%) TomTec TomTec MACE or AVR (n = 33) 1) 2D GLS, 3D GLS, and 3D GRS were associated with outcomes.
2) AUC of 3D GLS was significantly larger than that of 2D GLS and 3D GRS.
3) 3D GLS was an only significant predictor after adjusting LV mass index and mean PG.
Sun 2016 [96] 66 Hemodialysis Not performed TomTec MACE (n = 23) 3D GLS and 3D GRS were associated with MACE.
Casaa-Rojo 2016 [84] 45 Asymptomatic severe MR with
Preserved LVEF (> 60%)
Not performed Toshiba MACE, LVEF< 60% or MV surgery (n = 15) 3D GLS, GAS, and GCS were associated with outcomes.
Shin 2016 [95] 96 Acute MI Toshiba Toshiba MACE (n = 12) 3D GAS was associated with outcomes.
Howard-Quijano 2017 [47] 163 Cardiac surgery GE GE MACE (n = 34) All 3D global strains were associated with MACE.
Medvedofsky 2018 [97] 416 Diverse Philips TomTec CV death (n = 114) 1) 2D/3D LVEF, 2D/3D GLS were significantly associated with outcomes.
2) 3D GLS was the strongest predictor for CV mortality.
Medvedofsky 2019 [98] 104 30–50% of 2D LVEF Philips TomTec CV death (n = 32) 1) Not 2D LVEF/2D GLS and 3DLVEF but 3D GLS was associated with outcomes.
  1. AUC area under the curve, AS aortic stenosis, AVR aortic valve replacement, CD cardiac death, CV cardiovascular, LV left ventricular, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MACE major adverse cardiac event, MI myocardial infarction, MR mitral regurgitation, MV mitral valve, PG pressure gradient
  2. Other abbreviations are the same in Table 1