Explore the vast range of titles available.

The aim of the present study was to compare the value of telmisartan and enalapril on ventricular remodeling and kidney prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease complicated with diabetic nephropathy, and provide discussion on clinical reasonably chosen medicine. A total of 60 cases of coronary artery disease complicated with diabetic nephropathy were randomly divided for telmisartan (80 mg/day) treatment (n=32), enalapril (10 mg/day) treatment (n=28), while the rest of the therapy was kept the same. After 12 weeks, the clinical effects were compared between different groups. It was found that in comparison with enalapril group, the left ventricular ejection fraction of telmisartan group was significantly higher, and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter was significantly lower (P<0.05). The serum creatinine level and 24-h protein of telmisartan group were significantly lower than that for the enalapril group (P<0.05). In conclusion, the regular telmisartan treatment for patients with coronary artery disease complicated with diabetic nephropathy is better than enalapril on ventricular remodeling and kidney prognosis.

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and preserved or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), there is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness of β-blockers in reducing mortality. We therefore investigated the effect of oral β-blockers on clinical benefit in patients with AMI with preserved or mildly reduced LVEF. We conducted a comprehensive systematic search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2000 to May 1, 2025, and finally included 16 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the β-blockers on patients with AMI with preserved or mildly reduced LVEF. The primary outcome was all-cause death, and the secondary outcomes were cardiac death, major adverse cardiovascular events, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke. According to the search strategy, we finally included 18 studies, of which 16 were observational studies and 2 were RCTs. In the 5 studies without propensity score matching data, all-cause death was significantly lower in the β-blocker group than in the no β-blocker group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53–0.80). In the propensity score-matched 10 observational researches and 2 RCTs, there were no significant differences in all-cause death between the 2 groups. β-Blockers seemed to significantly reduce all-cause death in both non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24–0.82; OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40–0.98). β-Blockers seemed to be more effective in lowering all-cause death and cardiac death in patients with AMI and an LVEF of 40% to 50% (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50–0.97), and in the group with a follow-up time of ≥ 3 years, the use of β-blockers was significantly more effective in reducing cardiac death compared with the group with a follow-up time of <3 years (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23–0.88). β-Blockers did not significantly reduce all-cause death and cardiac death in patients with AMI with preserved or mildly reduced LVEF. However, it seemed that patients with an LVEF of 40% to 50% might experience significant benefits in terms of long-term efficacy.

Endocardial border detection is a key step in assessing left ventricular systolic function in echocardiography. However, this process is still not sufficiently accurate, and manual retracing is often required, causing time-consuming and intra-/inter-observer variability in clinical practice. To address these clinical issues, more accurate and normalized automatic endocardial border detection would be valuable. Here, we develop a deep learning-based method for automated endocardial border detection and left ventricular functional assessment in two-dimensional echocardiographic videos. First, segmentation of the left ventricular cavity was performed in the six representative projections for a cardiac cycle. We employed four segmentation methods: U-Net, UNet++, UNet3+, and Deep Residual U-Net. UNet++ and UNet3+ showed a sufficiently high performance in the mean value of intersection over union and Dice coefficient. The accuracy of the four segmentation methods was then evaluated by calculating the mean value for the estimation error of the echocardiographic indexes. UNet++ was superior to the other segmentation methods, with the acceptable mean estimation error of the left ventricular ejection fraction of 10.8%, global longitudinal strain of 8.5%, and global circumferential strain of 5.8%, respectively. Our method using UNet++ demonstrated the best performance. This method may potentially support examiners and improve the workflow in echocardiography.

Improvement of risk scoring is particularly important for patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who generally lack efficient monitoring of progressing heart failure. Here, we evaluated whether the combination of serum biomarkers and echocardiographic parameters may be useful to predict the remodeling-related outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and preserved LVEF (HFpEF) as compared to those with reduced LVEF (HFrEF). Echocardiographic assessment and measurement of the serum levels of NT-proBNP, sST2, galectin-3, matrix metalloproteinases, and their inhibitors (MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, TIMP-1) was performed at the time of admission (1st day) and on the 10th–12th day upon STEMI onset. We found a reduction in NT-proBNP, sST2, galectin-3, and TIMP-1 in both patient categories from hospital admission to the discharge, as well as numerous correlations between the indicated biomarkers and echocardiographic parameters, testifying to the ongoing ventricular remodeling. In patients with HFpEF, NT-proBNP, sST2, galectin-3, and MMP-3 correlated with the parameters reflecting the diastolic dysfunction, while in patients with HFrEF, these markers were mainly associated with LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic volume/diameter. Therefore, the combination of the mentioned serum biomarkers and echocardiographic parameters might be useful for the prediction of adverse cardiac remodeling in patients with HFpEF.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that, when measured in the long axis, left ventricular systolic function is abnormal in patients with diastolic heart failure. Design: A case–control study. Setting: University teaching hospital (tertiary referral centre). Patients: 68 patients with heart failure, 29 with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 0.45 and diastolic dysfunction (diastolic heart failure), 39 with an LVEF of ≤ 0.45 (systolic heart failure), and 105 normal subjects, including 33 age matched controls. Methods: LVEF was measured by cross sectional Simpson's method, and mitral annular amplitudes and velocities by M mode and tissue Doppler echocardiography, respectively, along with mitral Doppler inflow velocities. Results were compared between the three groups. Main outcome measures: Peak systolic mitral annular velocity and amplitude between the different groups. Results: The mitral annular peak mean velocity and amplitude in systole were lower in the patients with diastolic heart failure (mean (SEM), 4.8 (0.2) cm/s) than in the age matched normal controls (6.1 (0.14) cm/s), but higher than those with systolic heart failure (2.8 (0.13) cm/s) (all p < 0.001). Similar changes were seen the mitral annular amplitude during systole. Peak early diastolic velocity and amplitude were also significantly reduced in the group with diastolic heart failure. Left ventricular hypertrophy was evident in over 95% patients in both diastolic and systolic heart failure groups, with a comparable left ventricular mass index. Conclusions: In patients with diastolic heart failure and evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy, there is systolic left ventricular impairment as measured by myocardial Doppler imaging of the longitudinal axis. Thus subtle abnormalities of systolic function are present in patients with heart failure and a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and there appears to be a continuum of systolic function between those with truly normal, mildly impaired (labelled diastolic heart failure), and obviously abnormal left ventricular systolic function. Isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncommon.

IntroductionReal-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3DE) is currently being developed to overcome the challenges of two-dimensional echocardiography, as it is a much cheaper alternative to the gold standard imaging method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). The aim of this meta-analysis is to validate RT3DE by comparing it to CMR, to ascertain whether it is a practical imaging method for routine clinical use.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis method was used to synthesise the evidence and studies published between 2000 and 2021 were searched using a PRISMA approach. Study outcomes included left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass (LVM), right ventricular end-systolic volume (RVESV), right ventricular end-diastolic volume (RVEDV) and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF). Subgroup analysis included study quality (high, moderate), disease outcomes (disease, healthy and disease), age group (50 years old and under, over 50 years), imaging plane (biplane, multiplane) and publication year (2010 and earlier, after 2010) to determine whether they explained the heterogeneity and significant difference results generated on RT3DE compared to CMR.ResultsThe pooled mean differences for were − 5.064 (95% CI − 10.132, 0.004, p > 0.05), 4.654 (95% CI − 4.947, 14.255, p > 0.05), − 0.783 (95% CI − 5.630, 4.065, p > 0.05, − 0.200 (95% CI − 1.215, 0.815, p > 0.05) for LVEF, LVM, RVESV and RVEF, respectively. We found no significant difference between RT3DE and CMR for these variables. Although, there was a significant difference between RT3DE and CMR for LVESV, LVEDV and RVEDV where RT3DE reports a lower value. Subgroup analysis indicated a significant difference between RT3DE and CMR for studies with participants with an average age of over 50 years but no significant difference for those under 50. In addition, a significant difference between RT3DE and CMR was found in studies using only participants with cardiovascular diseases but not in those using a combination of diseased and healthy participants. Furthermore, for the variables LVESV and LVEDV, the multiplane method shows no significant difference between RT3DE and CMR, as opposed to the biplane showing a significant difference. This potentially indicates that increased age, the presence of cardiovascular disease and the biplane analysis method decrease its concordance with CMR.ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates promising results for the use of RT3DE, with limited difference to CMR. Although in some cases, RT3DE appears to underestimate volume, ejection fraction and mass when compared to CMR. Further research is required in terms of imaging method and technology to validate RT3DE for routine clinical use.

•Supra-normal left ventricular ejection fraction is a new concept possibly associated with U-shaped prognosis.•Heart failure with supra-normal ejection fraction (HFsnEF) and Supra-normal left ventricular ejection fraction of definition, approach to pathophysiology, diagnostic strategy, and prognosis are reviewed.•The pathophysiology of HFsnEF is mainly microvascular dysfunction and its low stroke volume index.•Data on HFsnEF are still limited and further studies will be expected. Heart failure (HF) is often categorized by left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). A new category of HF characterized by supra-normal LVEF (>65%), named HF with supra-normal ejection fraction (HFsnEF), has been recently proposed. Some studies reported that patients with supra-normal LVEF might have an increased risk of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events and U-shaped mortality patterns. Currently, the prognosis of HFsnEF is not well established but seems to be associated with an increased risk of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events. It has been reported that HFsnEF is more prevalent in women and is associated with higher prevalence of nonischemic HF, higher blood urea nitrogen plasma levels, lower levels of natriuretic peptides, and to be less likely treated with β blockers. The pathophysiology of HFsnEF would be associated with microvascular dysfunction because of microvascular inflammation or reduced coronary flow reserve, and low stroke volume index with smaller cardiac chamber dimensions and concentric LV geometry. In this study, we systematically reviewed published data on patients with s supra-normal LV function and reported its definition, proposed pathophysiology, phenotypes, diagnostic strategy, and prognosis.

Background Machine learning algorithms have recently been developed to enable the automatic and real-time echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and have not been evaluated in critically ill patients. Methods Real-time LVEF was prospectively measured in 95 ICU patients with a machine learning algorithm installed on a cart-based ultrasound system. Real-time measurements taken by novices (LVEF Nov ) and by experts (LVEF Exp ) were compared with LVEF reference measurements (LVEF Ref ) taken manually by echo experts. Results LVEF Ref ranged from 26 to 80% (mean 54 ± 12%), and the reproducibility of measurements was 9 ± 6%. Thirty patients (32%) had a LVEF Ref  < 50% (left ventricular systolic dysfunction). Real-time LVEF Exp and LVEF Nov measurements ranged from 31 to 68% (mean 54 ± 10%) and from 28 to 70% (mean 54 ± 9%), respectively. The reproducibility of measurements was comparable for LVEF Exp (5 ± 4%) and for LVEF Nov (6 ± 5%) and significantly better than for reference measurements ( p  < 0.001). We observed a strong relationship between LVEF Ref and both real-time LVEF Exp ( r  = 0.86, p  < 0.001) and LVEF Nov ( r  = 0.81, p  < 0.001). The average difference (bias) between real time and reference measurements was 0 ± 6% for LVEF Exp and 0 ± 7% for LVEF Nov . The sensitivity to detect systolic dysfunction was 70% for real-time LVEF Exp and 73% for LVEF Nov . The specificity to detect systolic dysfunction was 98% both for LVEF Exp and LVEF Nov . Conclusion Machine learning-enabled real-time measurements of LVEF were strongly correlated with manual measurements obtained by experts. The accuracy of real-time LVEF measurements was excellent, and the precision was fair. The reproducibility of LVEF measurements was better with the machine learning system. The specificity to detect left ventricular dysfunction was excellent both for experts and for novices, whereas the sensitivity could be improved. Trial registration : NCT05336448. Retrospectively registered on April 19, 2022.

Background Sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction is associated with poor outcomes, but traditional measurements of systolic function such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) do not directly correlate with prognosis. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) utilizing speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) could be a better marker of intrinsic left ventricular (LV) function, reflecting myocardial deformation rather than displacement and volume changes. We sought to investigate the prognostic value of GLS in patients with sepsis and/or septic shock. Methods We conducted a systematic review (PubMed and Embase up to 26 October 2017) and meta-analysis to investigate the association between GLS and mortality at longest follow up in patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock. In the primary analysis, we included studies reporting transthoracic echocardiography data on GLS according to mortality. A secondary analysis evaluated the association between LVEF and mortality including data from studies reporting GLS. Results We included eight studies in the primary analysis with a total of 794 patients (survival 68%, n  = 540). We found a significant association between worse LV function and GLS values and mortality: standard mean difference (SMD) − 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) − 0.47, − 0.04; p  = 0.02 (low heterogeneity, I 2  = 43%). No significant association was found between LVEF and mortality in the same population of patients (eight studies; SMD, 0.02; 95% CI − 0.14, 0.17; p  = 0.83; no heterogeneity, I 2  = 3%). Conclusions Worse GLS (less negative) values are associated with higher mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, while such association is not valid for LVEF. More critical care research is warranted to confirm the better ability of STE in demonstrating underlying intrinsic myocardial disease compared to LVEF.

Background Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an established method for evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle tracking echocardiography seems to be an important additive method for evaluation of LV function with improved reproducibility compared with LVEF. Our aim was to compare reproducibility of GLS and LVEF between an expert and trainee both as echocardiographic examiner and analyst. Methods Forty-seven patients with recent Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) underwent echocardiographic examination by both an expert echocardiographer and a trainee. Both echocardiographers, blinded for clinical data and each other’s findings, performed image analysis for evaluation of intra- and inter- observer variability. GLS was measured using speckle tracking echocardiography. LVEF was calculated by Simpson’s biplane method. Results The trainee measured a GLS of − 19.4% (±3.5%) and expert − 18.7% (±3.2%) with an Intra class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.89 (0.74–0.95). LVEF by trainee was 50.3% (±8.2%) and by expert 53.6% (±8.6%), ICC coefficient was 0.63 (0.32–0.80). For GLS the systematic difference was 0.21% (− 4.58–2.64) vs. 4.08% (− 20.78–12.62) for LVEF. Conclusion GLS is a more reproducible method for evaluation of LV function than LVEF regardless of echocardiographic training.