RESUMEN
AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the additional value of global longitudinal strain (GLS) on top of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in long-term risk prediction of combined death and heart failure (HF) re-hospitalization after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHOD AND RESULTS: This retrospective study included patients admitted with ACS between 2008 and 2014 from the three participating university hospitals. LVEF and GLS were assessed at a core lab from images acquired during the index hospital stay. Their prognostic value was studied with the Cox proportional hazards model (median follow-up 6.2 years). A nested model comparison was performed with C-statistics. A total of 941 patients qualified for multivariable analysis after multiple imputation of missing baseline covariables. The combined outcome was reached in 17.7% of the cases. Both GLS and LVEF were independent predictors of the combined outcome, hazard ratio (HR) 1.068 (95% CI 1.017-1.121) and HR 0.980 (95% CI 0.962-0.998), respectively. The C-statistic increased from 0.742 (95% CI 0.702-0.783) to 0.749 (95% CI 0.709-0.789) (P = 0.693) when GLS entered the model with clinical data and LVEF. CONCLUSION: GLS emerged as an independent long-term risk predictor of all-cause death and HF re-hospitalization. However, there was no significant incremental predictive value of GLS when LVEF was already known.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Sweden routinely undergo an echocardiographic examination with assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). LVEF is a measurement widely used for outcome prediction and treatment guidance. The obtained LVEF is categorized as normal (> 50%) or mildly, moderately, or severely impaired (40-49, 30-39, and < 30%, respectively) and reported to the nationwide registry for ACS (SWEDEHEART). The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the reported LVEF values by validating them against an independent re-evaluation of LVEF. METHODS: A random sample of 130 patients from three hospitals were included. LVEF re-evaluation was performed by two independent reviewers using the modified biplane Simpson method and their mean LVEF was compared to the LVEF reported to SWEDEHEART. Agreement between reported and re-evaluated LVEF was assessed using Gwet's AC2 statistics. RESULTS: Analysis showed good agreement between reported and re-evaluated LVEF (AC2: 0.76 [95% CI 0.69-0.84]). The LVEF re-evaluations were in agreement with the registry reported LVEF categorization in 86 (66.0%) of the cases. In 33 (25.4%) of the cases the SWEDEHEART-reported LVEF was lower than re-evaluated LVEF. The opposite relation was found in 11 (8.5%) of the cases (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Independent validation of SWEDEHEART-reported LVEF shows an overall good agreement with the re-evaluated LVEF. However, a tendency towards underestimation of LVEF was observed, with the largest discrepancy between re-evaluated LVEF and registry LVEF in subjects with subnormal LV-function in whom the reported assessment of LVEF should be interpreted more cautiously.
