Department of error: GLS doesn ’ t really reflect the global LV function.

*The post is not meant for those who understood GLS (Global longitudinal  strain) in a proper perspective. I am writing this, after a surprising answer from many students of Echocardiography, when I asked them what is GLS?  Most answered, GLS currently is the best global LV functional index available. What a misunderstanding? The fact is, EF % will always be the best global parameter*, while GLS remains a regional function index.(*The limitation of EF% is in the methods of measuring it and not in EF itself.)                                    We are trying hard to ditch LV EF%  by Teichholz’s / even 2D Simpson method, as they are considered a crude way to measure global LV function. Unfortunately, we are doing this without a credible alternative. GLS is being promoted as the next best. The normal GLS is around(-20 ± 2) . Nothing is perfect. Best global LV function probably can be achieved by 3D Voxel Echo/MRI) Normal GLS with various machines Please note, the bullseye 17 segment model though brings an illusion of a radial perspective of cardiac contraction, its purely longitudinal stain represented in short axis format. The much popular GLS (Global longitudinal stain ) is a poor surrogate for global function. The word global is apparently misguiding and conveys a false message. When we refer to GLS, it is an adjective for longitudinal function and nothing to do with overall global LV function. (Though we have many studies to show it has good corre...
Source: Dr.S.Venkatesan MD - Category: Cardiology Authors: Tags: Echocardiography - LV dysfunction Echocardiography-hemodynamics 2d current role of m mode echocardiography global longitudinal function gls vs ef% limitations of gls echo radial strain m mode deforamtion Imaging strain rate speckle track Source Type: blogs