From ejection fraction, to myocardial strain, and myocardial work in echocardiography: Clinical impact and controversies

Abstract

AbstractEnhancing an echocardiographic tool, aimed to detect even subtle left ventricular (LV) systolic function abnormalities, capable of obtaining both early diagnosis and risk prediction of heart disease, represents an ambitious, attractive, and arduous purpose in the modern era of cardiovascular imaging. Ideally, that tool should be simple, reliable, and reproducible, in order to be concretely applied in routine clinical practice. Importantly, that technique should be physiologically plausible and useful both at the population‐level, as well as in the individual subject. For a long time, LV ejection fraction (EF) has been considered the first‐line parameter for assessing LV global systolic function, strictly related to the prognosis, at least in some settings. However, LV EF limitations are well‐known, even though frequently overemphasized, including its load‐dependency. Therefore, myocardial strain techniques have been proposed, deemed able to disclose even subtle early LV function anomalies. Nevertheless, many disadvantages of myocardial strain have been reported as well. More recently, myocardial work (MW) analysis has been introduced as a new echocardiographic tool for the evaluation of LV global systolic function, attempting to overcome EF and strain disadvantages. However, MW has shown many limits as well. Notwithstanding, LV EF still remains a landmark functional classification marker for heart failure and cardiac oncology, allowing reliable fast reassessment of LV function changes during patient management, in order to guide treatment in individual cases as well. Notably, global longitudinal strain and MW parameters seem to show better meaningful results at the population‐level, but controversial clinical impact, major limitations, wide cut‐offs spread and overlap, when the single value needs to be applied to the single case. Taking into account the recent literature‐based evidence, the scope of the present narrative critical review is trying to delineate the different types of information given by the described LV global systolic function parameters, both at the population‐level and in the individual case, in order to trace a comparative analysis of advantages and limitations in clinical practice.