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.

Right ventricular (RV) systolic function has an important role in the prediction of adverse outcomes, including mortality, in a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) conditions. Because of complex RV geometry and load dependency of the RV functional parameters, conventional echocardiographic parameters such as RV fractional area change (FAC) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), have limited prognostic power in a large number of patients. RV longitudinal strain overcame the majority of these limitations, as it is angle-independent, less load-dependent, highly reproducible, and measure regional myocardial deformation. It has a high predictive value in patients with pulmonary hypertension, heart failure, congenital heart disease, ischemic heart disease, pulmonary embolism, cardiomyopathies, and valvular disease. It enables detection of subclinical RV damage even when conventional parameters of RV systolic function are in the normal range. Even though cardiac magnetic resonance-derived RV longitudinal strain showed excellent predictive value, echocardiography-derived RV strain remains the method of choice for evaluation of RV mechanics primarily due to high availability. Despite a constantly growing body of evidence that support RV longitudinal strain evaluation in the majority of CV patients, its assessment has not become the part of the routine echocardiographic examination in the majority of echocardiographic laboratories. The aim of this clinical review was to summarize the current data about the predictive value of RV longitudinal strain in patients with pulmonary hypertension, heart failure and valvular heart diseases.

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 We hypothesized that left atrial (LA) remodelling and function are associated with poor exercise capacity as prognostic marker in chronic heart failure (CHF) across a broad range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results One hundred seventy-one patients with CHF were analysed [age 65 ± 11 years, 136 males (80%); 86 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 27 heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), 58 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)]. All patients underwent echocardiography and maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing and were classified according to a prognostic cut-off of peak VO₂ (pVO₂; 14 mL/kg/min). Seventy-seven (45%) patients reached pVO₂ < 14 and 94 (55%) pVO₂ ≥ 14 mL/kg/min. Between the two groups, there was a considerable difference in both left atrial volume (LAVi, 53 ± 24 vs. 44 ± 18 mL/m², P = 0.005) and function (LA reservoir strain 12 ± 5 vs. 20 ± 10%, P < 0.0001). Receiver-operating characteristic curves identified LA reservoir strain (area under the curve: 0.73 [0.65–0.80], P < 0.0001) as strong predictor for impaired pVO₂ among all echocardiographic variables; LA reservoir strain < 23% had 37% specificity but a very high sensitivity (96%) in identifying a severely reduced pVO₂. In logistic regression analysis, LA reservoir strain < 23% was associated with a highly increased risk of pVO₂ < 14 mL/kg/min (odds ratio 16.0 [4.7–54.6]; P < 0.0001). The multivariate analysis showed that a reduced LA reservoir strain was associated with pVO₂ < 14 mL/kg/min after adjustment for age, body mass index (BMI), and clinical variables, that is, New York Heart Association class, atrial fibrillation, haemoglobin, and creatinine (b 0.22 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.12–0.31]; P < 0.0001), and after adjustment for echocardiographic variables, that is, LVEF or left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (b 0.16 [95% CI 0.08–0.24]; P < 0.0001). Patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were separately analysed. Among LA reservoir strain, LAVi, LVEF, LVGLS, and TAPSE, LA reservoir strain was the only one significantly associated with pVO₂ in all subgroups (after adjustment for sex and BMI, P = 0.003, 0.04, and 0.01, respectively). Conclusions In patients with CHF, an impaired LA reservoir function is independently associated with a severely reduced pVO₂. LA dysfunction represents a marker of poor prognosis across LVEF borders in the CHF population.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents the most frequent form of heart failure in women, with almost two-fold higher prevalence than in men. Studies have revealed sex-specific HFpEF pathophysiology, and suggested the possibility of a sex-specific therapeutic approach in these patients. Some cardiovascular risk factors, such as arterial hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and race, show specific features that might be responsible for the development of HFpEF in women. These risk factors are related to specific cardiovascular changes—left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and hypertrophy, ventricular–vascular coupling, and impaired functional capacity—that are related to specific cardiac phenotype and HFpEF development. However, there is no agreement regarding outcomes in women with HFpEF. For HFpEF, most studies have found higher hospitalization rates for women than for men. Mortality rates are usually not different. Pharmacological treatment in HFpEF is challenging, along with many unresolved issues and questions raised. Available data on medical therapy in patients with HFpEF show no difference in outcomes between the sexes. Further investigations are necessary to better understand the pathophysiology and mechanisms of HFpEF, as well as to improve and eventually develop sex-specific therapy for HFpEF.