Prevalence of LV longitudinal systolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF vs controls
| Study | HFpEF patients rate of abnormal GLS | Asymptomatic controls rate of abnormal GLS | Cut-off of abnormal GLS | LV segments analysed | Software package |
| Wang et al4 | 95% | 5% | −16% | 18 | EchoPac |
| Liu et al5 | 85% | 15% | −17.5% | 18 | EchoPac |
| Morris et al7 | 81.5% | 15.5% | −16% | 18 | EchoPac |
| Yip et al8 | 37% | 0% | −16% | 18 | EchoPac |
| Kraigher-Krainer et al11 | 54.3% | 29.6% | −15.8% | 12 | TomTec |
| Donal et al19 | 39% | No control group | −16% | 18 | EchoPac |
| Shah et al15 | 52% | Not reported | −15.8% | 12 | TomTec |
| Freed et al31 | 75% | No control group | −20% | 12 | TomTec |
| DeVore et al33 | 65% | No control group | −16% | 18 | TomTec |
| Huang et al24 | 75.9% | No control group | −15.8% | 18 | EchoPac |
| All studies | mean 65.4% (range 37%–95%) | mean 13% (range 0%– 29.6%) |
The rate of abnormal GLS indicates the prevalence of LV longitudinal systolic dysfunction. GLS (ie, average longitudinal peak systolic strain from ≥12 LV segments).
HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; GLS, global longitudinal systolic strain.