Left atrial reservoir longitudinal strain and its incremental value to the left ventricular global longitudinal strain in predicting anthracycline‐induced cardiotoxicity

Zheng Li,Rui Zhao,Qunling Zhang,Yihui Shen,Xianhong Shu,Leilei Cheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.15805
2024-04-03
Echocardiography
Abstract:Interval changes in LASr, LVGLS, and LAVGLS were predictors of subsequent LV cardiotoxicity after the completion of the anthracycline‐based chemotherapy. Regarding the diagnostic performance, ΔLAVGLS showed significantly improved specificity (93.9% vs. 74.2%, P = 0.002) and larger AUC (0.905 vs. 0.763, P = 0.027) than those of ΔLVGLS. Background Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) has been recommended by current guidelines for diagnosing anthracycline‐induced cardiotoxicity. However, little is known about the early changes in left atrial (LA) morphology and function in this population. Our study aimed to evaluate the potential usefulness of LA indices and their incremental value to LVGLS with three‐dimensional echocardiography (3DE) in the early detection of subclinical cardiotoxicity in patients with lymphoma receiving anthracycline. Methods A total of 80 patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma who received six cycles of anthracycline‐based treatment were enrolled. Echocardiography was performed at baseline (T0), after four cycles (T1), and after the completion of six cycles of chemotherapy (T2). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LVGLS, LA volumes, LA emptying fraction (LAEF), LA active emptying fraction (LAAEF), and LA reservoir longitudinal strain (LASr) were quantified with 3DE. Left atrioventricular global longitudinal strain (LAVGLS) was calculated as the sum of peak LASr and the absolute value of peak LVGLS (LAVGLS = LASr+|LVGLS|). LV cardiotoxicity was defined as a new LVEF reduction by ≥10 percentage points to an LVEF of ≤50%. Results Fourteen (17.5%) patients developed LV cardiotoxicity at T2. LA volumes, LAEF, and LAAEF remained stable over time. Impairment of LASr (28.35 ± 5.03 vs. 25.04 ± 4.10, p 19.75% (sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 87.9%; area under the curve (AUC), .842; p 13.19% (sensitivity, 78.6%; specificity, 74.2%; AUC, .763; p 16.80% (sensitivity, 78.6%; specificity, 93.9%; AUC, .905; p
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?