ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Measurement of global longitudinal strain using the apical four-chamber view as a simple indicator for assessing myocardial longitudinal deformation in patients with functional single ventricle.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, no unified standardized protocols exist for myocardial longitudinal strain measurement in functional single ventricle (FSV) patients, causing inconsistent methodologies in clinical practice and related studies. Some studies use only the apical four-chamber view, while others employ three apical views.
objectiveThis study aimed to determine whether longitudinal strain (LS-4CH) measured from the apical four-chamber view can serve as an effective substitute for the average global longitudinal strain (GLS-AV) derived from multiple apical views in different subtypes of FSV patients.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 34 FSV patients. The consistency between LS-4CH and GLS-AV was assessed via Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Passing-Bablok regression, with Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) for formal equivalence verification. Intra- and inter-observer ICC were used to evaluate the repeatability of the two methods. Spearman's correlation analyzed the associations of LS-4CH and GLS-AV with cardiac magnetic resonance-derived ejection fraction (CMR-EF). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis evaluated the predictive value of each index for predicting CMR-EF < 50%; DeLong test, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used for predictive efficacy comparison and incremental value assessment.
resultsLS-4CH and GLS-AV exhibited good consistency (all ICC > 0.87, CCC > 0.83) and excellent intra- and inter-observer repeatability, with TOST confirming their statistical equivalence within a predefined margin of ± 3% (all P < 0.05). Both GLS-AV and LS-4CH showed significant negative correlations with CMR-EF in the overall cohort and both SLV/SRV subgroups (all P < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that GLS-AV had significant predictive value for CMR-EF < 50% in the SLV group (AUC = 0.86, P = 0.02).
conclusionWhen multi-view measurement of GLS-AV is impractical due to poor image quality, technical limitations, or urgent assessment needs, LS-4CH may serve as an effective alternative assessment indicator for patients with functional single ventricle. However, GLS-AV remains the preferred method when feasible, since LS-4CH cannot reflect regional dysfunction beyond the apical four-chamber view.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.