ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Myocardial Strain in Perioperative Medicine: A Practical Review for Anesthesiologists.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial strain imaging, derived from speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE), has evolved from a research tool into a reproducible technique for detecting subclinical myocardial dysfunction. Recent advances in automated contouring and artificial intelligence have improved feasibility, reproducibility, and analysis speed, making multichamber strain assessment increasingly accessible in perioperative practice. Perioperative cardiovascular complications, including myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS), postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF), and heart failure, are associated with substantial postoperative morbidity and mortality. Conventional echocardiographic parameters, particularly left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), lack sensitivity for detecting early myocardial dysfunction. By quantifying myocardial deformation, strain imaging identifies subtle abnormalities in ventricular and atrial mechanics before conventional echocardiographic abnormalities become evident. Among available parameters, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) and left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) provide the strongest evidence for perioperative risk stratification, with impaired values independently associated with MINS and POAF, respectively. Right ventricular strain (RV-GLS, RV-FWLS) and right atrial reservoir strain (RASr) remain promising but less standardized parameters supported mainly by observational data. Despite these advances, several barriers continue to limit widespread implementation, including vendor variability, the lack of standardized thresholds, and the absence of validated transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-specific reference values. Importantly, current evidence supports myocardial strain primarily as a tool for risk stratification rather than for guiding therapy. No randomized trial has demonstrated that strain-guided perioperative management improves clinical outcomes, and its incremental value beyond established perioperative tools, including clinical risk scores, biomarkers, and conventional echocardiography, remains to be established. This review aims to provide a practical framework for the perioperative use of myocardial strain by summarizing the current evidence, clarifying its methodological limitations, simplifying its acquisition and interpretation for non-expert users, distinguishing established clinical applications from future research directions, and identifying the key evidence gaps that must be addressed before strain-guided strategies can be incorporated into routine perioperative care.
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.