Aims The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to examine the association of left atrial (LA) strain (i.e. LA reservoir function) with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (DD) in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results We analysed the baseline echocardiographic recordings of 300 patients in sinus rhythm from the SOCRATES‐PRESERVED and SOCRATES‐REDUCED studies. LA volume index was normal in 89 (29.7%), of whom 60.6% had an abnormal LA reservoir strain (i.e. ≤23%). In addition, the extent of LA strain impairment was significantly associated with the severity of DD according to the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography recommendations (DD grade I: LA strain 22.2 ± 6.6, rate of abnormal LA strain 62.9%; DD grade II: LA strain 16.6 ± 7.4, rate of abnormal LA strain 88.6%; DD grade III: LA strain 11.1 ± 5.4%, rate of abnormal LA strain 95.7%; all P < 0.01). In line with these findings, LA strain had a good diagnostic performance to determine severe DD [area under the curve 0.83 (95% CI 0.77–0.88), cut‐off 14.1%, sensitivity 80%, specificity 77.8%], which was significantly better than for LA volume index, LA total emptying fraction, and the mitral E/e′ ratio. Conclusions The findings of this analysis suggest that LA strain could be a useful parameter in the evaluation of DD in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm, irrespective of LVEF.

Background The purpose of this meta-analysis was to confirm if the global longitudinal systolic function of the left ventricle (LV) is altered in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We searched in different databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) studies that analysed LV global longitudinal systolic strain (GLS) in patients with HFpEF and in controls (such as healthy subjects or asymptomatic patients with arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus or coronary artery disease). Results Twenty-two studies (2284 patients with HFpEF and 2302 controls) were included in the final analysis. Patients with HFpEF had significantly lower GLS than healthy subjects (mean −15.7% (range −12% to −18.9%) vs mean −19.9% (range −17.1% to −21.5%), weighted mean difference −4.2% (95% CI −3.3% to −5.0%), p < 0.001, respectively). In addition, patients with HFpEF had also significantly lower GLS than asymptomatic patients (mean −15.5% (range −13.4% to −18.4%) vs mean −18.3% (range −15.1% to −20.4%), weighted mean difference −2.8%(95% CI −1.9% to −3.6%), p < 0.001, respectively). In line, 10 studies showed that the rate of abnormal GLS was significantly higher in patients with HFpEF (mean 65.4% (range 37%–95%)) than in asymptomatic subjects (mean 13% (range 0%–29.6%)). Regarding the prognostic relevance of abnormal GLS in HFpEF, two multicentre studies with large sample size (447 and 348) and high number of events (115 and 177) showed that patients with abnormal GLS had worse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes than those with normal GLS (HR for CV mortality and HF hospitalisation 2.14 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.66) and 1.94 (95% CI 1.22 to 3.07)), even adjusting these analyses for multiples clinical and echocardiographic variables. Conclusion The present meta-analysis analysing 2284 patients with HFpEF and 2302 controls confirms that the longitudinal systolic function of the LV is significantly altered in high proportion of patients with HFpEF. Further large multicentre studies with the aim to confirm the prognostic role of abnormal GLS in HFpEF are warranted.

Aims The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the potential usefulness of diastolic stress test (DST) echocardiography in patients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results Patients with suspected HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%, exertional dyspnoea, septal E/e′ at rest 9–14, and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) at rest < 220 pg/mL; n = 13) and a control group constituted from asymptomatic patients with arterial hypertension (n = 19) and healthy subjects (n = 18) were included. All patients were analysed by two‐dimensional and Doppler echocardiography at rest and during exercise (DST) and underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing and NT‐proBNP analysis during exercise. HFpEF during exercise was defined as exertional dyspnoea and peak VO₂ ≤ 20.0 mL/min/kg. In patients with suspected HFpEF at rest, 84.6% of these patients developed HFpEF during exercise, whereas in the group of asymptomatic patients with hypertension and healthy subjects, the rate of developed HFpEF during exercise was 0%. Regarding the diagnostic performance of DST to detect HFpEF during exercise, an E/e′ ratio >15 during exercise was the most accurate parameter to detect HFpEF (accuracy 86%), albeit a low sensitivity (45.5%). Nonetheless, combining E/e′ with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) velocity > 2.8 m/s during exercise provided a significant increase in the sensitivity to detect patients with HFpEF during exercise (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 79.5%, and accuracy 78%). Consistent with these findings, an increase of E/e′ was significantly linked to worse peak VO₂, and the combination of an increase of both E/e′ and TR velocity was associated with elevated NT‐proBNP values during exercise. Conclusions The findings of this pilot study suggest that DST using E/e′ ratio and TR velocity could be of potential usefulness to diagnose HFpEF during exercise in patients with suspected HFpEF at rest.

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the potential usefulness and clinical relevance of a novel left atrial (LA) filling index using 2D speckle-tracking transthoracic echocardiography to estimate left ventricular (LV) filling pressures in patients with preserved LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results: The LA filling index was calculated as the ratio of the mitral early-diastolic inflow peak velocity (E) over LA reservoir strain (i.e. E/LA strain ratio). This index showed a good diagnostic performance to determine elevated LV filling pressures in a test-cohort (n = 31) using invasive measurements of LV end-diastolic pressure (area under the curve 0.82, cut-off > 3.27 = sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 78.9%), which was confirmed in a validation-cohort (patients with cardiovascular risk factors; n = 486) using the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging criteria (cut-off > 3.27 = sensitivity 88.1%, specificity 77.6%) and in a specificity-validation cohort (patients free of cardiovascular risk factors, n = 120; cut-off > 3.27 = specificity 98.3%). Regarding the clinical relevance of the LA filling index, an elevated E/LA strain ratio (>3.27) was significantly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization at 2 years (odds ratio 4.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8–10.5), even adjusting this analysis by age, sex, renal failure, LV hypertrophy, or abnormal LV global longitudinal systolic strain. Conclusion: The findings from this study suggest that a novel LA filling index using 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography could be of potential usefulness and clinical relevance in estimating LV filling pressures in patients with preserved LVEF.