Arq Bras Cardiol: Imagem cardiovasc. 2022; 35(2): eabc304

Left Ventricular Longitudinal Linear Displacement Versus Global Longitudinal Strain on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

DOI: 10.47593/2675-312X/20223502eabc304

Abstract

Background

Left ventricular (LV) systolic diastolic function is prognostic in cardiovascular diseases and can be assessed via global longitudinal strain (GLS) on echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). However, GLS by CMR requires the use of expensive software. Longitudinal linear displacement (LLD) may be a simple and inexpensive alternative to GLS, but the two have not been systematically compared.

Objective

To compare LLD with GLS and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in aortic valve disease patients and controls.

Methods

We included 44 participants (26 with aortic valve disease, 19 controls). GLS was determined using CVI42 software (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging), while the LLD linear measurements of the distance between the base/apex of the LV included maximum displacement (MD), maximum velocity in early diastole (MVED), atrioventricular junction velocity in diastasis (VDS), and VDS/MVED ratio.

Results

DM and MVED were correlated with GLS (r=0.69 and r=0.65, respectively) and LVEF (r=0.47 and r=0.57, p<0.001 for both). DM and MVED showed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 and 0.91, and at the best cut-off point (-0.13 and 0.66), sensitivities of 72.43% and 57.14% and specificities of 80.65% and 87.10%, respectively, compared to GLS. Using LVEF as a reference, we obtained AUC of 0.70 and 0.82, and at the best cut-off point (-0.11 and 0.61), sensitivities of 75.00% and 50.00% and specificities of 72.97% and 78.38%, respectively.

Conclusion

LLD demonstrated similar performance to that of GLS. MD derived from LLD was the best parameter during systole, while MVED was the best during diastole. Our findings demonstrate the routine, quick, and inexpensive assessment of diastolic function on CMR.