Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
      • Research Guidelines
        • Minimum Information About Microarray Data Experiments (MIAME)
      • Abstract
      • Acknowledgments
      • Clinical Implications (Only by invitation)
      • Conflict(s) of Interest/Disclosure(s) Statement
      • Figure Legends
      • Figures
      • Novelty and Significance: 1) What Is New, 2) What Is Relevant?
      • References
      • Sources of Funding
      • Tables
      • Text
      • Title Page
      • Online/Data Supplement
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
      • Change of Authorship Form
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Hypertension

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
Editorial

Prognostic Importance of a New Measure of Global Systolic Heart Function in Healthy Adults

Christie McComb, Colin Berry
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.199992
Hypertension. 2013;61:762-764
Originally published March 13, 2013
Christie McComb
From the West of Scotland Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (C.B.); and BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (C.M., C.B.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Colin Berry
From the West of Scotland Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (C.B.); and BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (C.M., C.B.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Jump to

  • Article
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Loading

See related article, pp 770–778

Imaging left ventricular systolic function has functional and prognostic importance.1,2 Imaging with echocardiography has a broad range of indications,3 is usually straightforward to perform by trained staff, and is harmless. Compared with echocardiography, other heart imaging methods of systolic function, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography, x-ray ventriculography, and radionuclide ventriculography, are less susceptible to measurement errors but are more expensive and, with the exception of MRI, are associated with ionizing radiation.

The appropriateness and use of different imaging tests of systolic function (Table) are influenced by several factors, including the known measurement accuracy, evidence of clinical use, safety, cost- and comparative-effectiveness, expert consensus, population characteristics, local availability, and quality.4–8 Echocardiography has high temporal resolution, whereas compared with echocardiography MRI has much higher spatial resolution for determination of endocardial and epicardial borders, and MRI is inherently less susceptible to errors resulting from measurements made in the wrong plane.9 Ventricular ejection fraction derived from radionuclide ventriculography is calculated from changes in gamma radiation intensity over time and has very high precision and accuracy. Unlike MRI, computed tomography, and echocardiography, nuclear ventriculography does not provide information on wall thickness or pathology in clinical practice. Therefore, each test for assessment of heart function differs in terms of methodology, type and quality of information provided, cost, and safety profile.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table.

Methods for Measurement of Heart Function, Mass, and Volume

Regardless of the imaging method, the ejection fraction is the usual standard method for reporting left and right ventricular systolic function.1 Ejection fraction is defined as the ratio of stroke volume to end-diastolic volume.1 Stroke volume is defined as the difference between end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes.1 In fact, ejection fraction may be estimated in different ways. Ejection fraction may be estimated by measurement of 1-dimensional (D) fractional shortening using a single plane view of the heart, such as with M-mode echocardiography. Fractional shortening is the difference between end-diastole and end-systole divided by the end-diastolic dimension and multiplied by 100. Alternatively, measurement of ventricular areas and length is a more representative approach for estimation of ejection fraction. The Simpson Biplane method (method of discs) integrates ventricular area and length.8 With this method, cavity volume is estimated as the sum of cross-sectional areas of each slice multiplied by the distance between slices (including slice thickness and gaps between imaging planes) according to the following formula:

Embedded Image, where n is the number of cross-sectional areas.(1)

Finally, there are fundamental differences between linear (M-mode), 2D, 3D, 4D (including time) volumetric, and geometric primary measurements.8 Volumetric measurements require delineation of the endocardial border, whereas linear measurements in a single plane do not. Because heart shape changes during the cardiac cycle in radial, circumferential, and long-axis directions, a 2D image will fail to capture through-plane motion, which could be detected by 3D imaging. A volumetric approach may not capture ventricular rotation and twist but could provide an assessment of ejection fraction with high precision.

Because assessing systolic function with the ejection fraction is reasonably straightforward, this parameter is widely used to describe heart function, including in epidemiology studies and clinical trials. However, there are several limitations with ejection fraction because it is a global index and is not informative of regional changes in systolic function. Other parameters of pump performance, such as wall motion, strain, and twist, may be much more informative about heart function (including early changes related to aging and subclinical cardiovascular disease). On the basis of advances with imaging technologies, these biomechanical parameters can be measured in the clinic, although the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of some of these parameters may be less straightforward.10–12 In a large cohort of consecutive adults referred for echocardiography for the assessment of known or suspected impairment of left ventricular function, strain estimated from 2D speckle tracking had greater prognostic value than ejection fraction.13 However, some functional parameters, such as strain and wall motion, are less straightforward to analyze potentially meaning scans (or postprocessing) of longer duration and complexity. Furthermore, neither ejection fraction nor any of the other functional parameters include information on heart size or ventricular mass, which is positively influenced by afterload and a key measure of end-organ damage in cardiovascular disease and especially hypertension.

Based on the known limitations of the usual measures of systolic function, and especially ejection fraction, investigators in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) have developed a new index, Left Ventricular Global Function Index (LVGFI) which integrates global function (ejection fraction) with heart size, including left ventricular mass.14 The index is appealing because it is a simple concept and integrates prognostically important attributes, and is defined as follows:

LVGFI (%) = (LVSV/LV global volume)×100 (2)

where left ventricular (LV) global volume was defined as the sum of the LV mean cavity volume [(LVEDV+LVESV)/2], where LVEDV and LVESV are the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, respectively, and the myocardium volume (LV mass/1.05 grams/mL). The definition of LVSV is left ventricular stroke volume.

Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis was an MRI-based longitudinal study of community dwelling adults in North East United States and therefore represented an ideal opportunity to estimate LVGFI in a large number of people who were followed up for over 7 years for cardiovascular events, including heart failure.14 Mean LVGFI at baseline was 32±5% in the whole population, and an LVGFI at baseline <33% was associated with a 5-fold increased risk of future heart failure and a 2-fold risk of future adverse cardiovascular events (hard cardiovascular events, including hard coronary events [myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and death from coronary disease]) plus fatal and nonfatal stroke.14 Given the large sample size, it is perhaps surprising that LV ejection fraction did not predict cardiovascular outcomes.

Given the complex nature of heart function, it is important that imaging methods have sufficient diagnostic accuracy to detect the effects of cardiovascular disease on the heart. There are four characteristics relevant to the usefulness of a diagnostic cardiac imaging test: (1) precision, (2) theoretical assumptions, (3) influence of hemodynamics, and (4) clinical use. First, as regards precision, LVGFI was developed with MRI, which is a gold standard test for measurement of ventricular dimensions. Second, there are theoretical assumptions made, and echocardiographic assessments may be susceptible to error because of nonsymmetrical ventricular shape (although this is less the case for 3D echocardiography).8 In this regard, LVGFI is a ratio (like ejection fraction) with systolic volume included in both denominator and numerator, and any errors in the original measurements may be compounded. Third, hemodynamic and loading conditions influence cardiac performance, and like ejection fraction, LVGFI will also be subject to these conditions, although because LVGFI incorporates heart volume, LVGFI may be an improvement because this method will account for ventricular mass and hypertrophy.

Finally, there is the clinical use of the method. On the one hand, the method should be straightforward to acquire, as well as being reliable and of prognostic significance. If these conditions are satisfied, then the method may be adopted in clinical practice, even if theoretical or methodological considerations are debated. Ejection fraction is an example of this because, in several ways, it is an error-prone method but it is straightforward to acquire,3–8 has prognostic value,2 and is benchmark for prescription of evidence-based medicines in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.15 LVGFI could be in the same category. Although there may be methodological aspects which may stimulate debate, LVGFI has prognostic value in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis study and its prognostic importance is superior to ejection fraction.14 In terms of clinical use, LVGFI has been developed and tested in one population using MRI data but how would it perform in others. Would LVGFI be clinically useful in patients with abnormalities in ventricular volume (eg, chronic heart failure) or mass (eg, left ventricular hypertrophy)? In the study by Mewton et al,14 LVGFI has been calculated using MRI data. Would the potential clinical use of LVGFI be maintained with less precise imaging methods, such as 2D echocardiography which is more widely used than MRI? Furthermore, in terms of transferability to the clinic, hopefully postprocessing algorithms could be developed to calculate LVGFI with minimal time delay.

Overall, LVGFI is an appealing new cardiac parameter because it incorporates heart size as well as function and has evidence to support its prognostic value. Future studies should be performed to assess its prognostic performance in patients with risk factors for cardiovascular disease and in individuals with established cardiovascular disease. LVGFI should be tested when derived using echocardiography. Further validation of LVGFI should include assessments of whether or not it is responsive to the effects of evidence-based antihypertensive drugs (which could be performed retrospectively using existing clinical trial databases). If this is the case then LVGFI could be considered as an end point in future clinical trials of antihypertensive interventions.

Sources of Funding

Christie McComb is supported by Health Sciences Scotland and National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Colin Berry is supported by a Senior Fellowship from the Scottish Funding Council and receives grant support from the British Heart Foundation, Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Council UK, Medical Research Council, and Medical Research Scotland.

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.

  • This paper was sent to John Hall, Consulting editor, for review by expert referees, editorial decision, and final disposition.

  • © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Braunwald E
    1. Little WC,
    2. Braunwald E
    . Assessment of cardiac function. Chapter 14 in Heart Disease. In: Braunwald E, ed. A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, vol. 1. 5th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Wang TJ,
    2. Evans JC,
    3. Benjamin EJ,
    4. Levy D,
    5. LeRoy EC,
    6. Vasan RS
    . Natural history of asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in the community. Circulation. 2003;108:977–982.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Echocardiography; American Heart Association; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Failure Society of America; Heart Rhythm Society; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance,
    2. Douglas PS,
    3. Garcia MJ,
    4. Haines DE,
    5. Lai WW,
    6. Manning WJ,
    7. Patel AR,
    8. Picard MH,
    9. Polk DM,
    10. Ragosta M,
    11. Ward RP,
    12. Weiner RB
    . ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57:1126–1166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hendel RC,
    2. Berman DS,
    3. Di Carli MF,
    4. Heidenreich PA,
    5. Henkin RE,
    6. Pellikka PA,
    7. Pohost GM,
    8. Williams KA
    ; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiography; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; Society of Nuclear Medicine. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Circulation. 2009;119:e561–e587.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hendel RC,
    2. Patel MR,
    3. Kramer CM,
    4. et al
    .; American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group; American College of Radiology; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; North American Society for Cardiac Imaging; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Interventional Radiology. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1475–1497.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Taylor AJ,
    2. Cerqueira M,
    3. Hodgson JM,
    4. Mark D,
    5. Min J,
    6. O’Gara P,
    7. Rubin GD
    ; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation. 2010;122:e525–e555.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gibbons RJ,
    2. Eckel RH,
    3. Jacobs AK
    ; American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. The utilization of cardiac imaging. Circulation. 2006;113:1715–1716.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lang RM,
    2. Bierig M,
    3. Devereux RB,
    4. Flachskampf FA,
    5. Foster E,
    6. Pellikka PA,
    7. Picard MH,
    8. Roman MJ,
    9. Seward J,
    10. Shanewise JS,
    11. Solomon SD,
    12. Spencer KT,
    13. Sutton MS,
    14. Stewart WJ
    ; Chamber Quantification Writing Group; American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee; European Association of Echocardiography. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:1440–1463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Bellenger NG,
    2. Burgess MI,
    3. Ray SG,
    4. Lahiri A,
    5. Coats AJ,
    6. Cleland JG,
    7. Pennell DJ
    . Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable? Eur Heart J. 2000;21:1387–1396.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sengupta PP,
    2. Tajik AJ,
    3. Chandrasekaran K,
    4. Khandheria BK
    . Twist mechanics of the left ventricle: principles and application. J Am Coll Cardiol Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:366–376.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Mor-Avi V,
    2. Lang RM,
    3. Badano LP,
    4. et al
    . Current and evolving echocardiographic techniques for the quantitative evaluation of cardiac mechanics: ASE/EAE consensus statement on methodology and indications endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24:277–313.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Helm RH,
    2. Lardo AC
    . Cardiac magnetic resonance assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2008;23:440–446.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Stanton T,
    2. Leano R,
    3. Marwick TH
    . Prediction of all-cause mortality from global longitudinal speckle strain: comparison with ejection fraction and wall motion scoring. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:356–364.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mewton N,
    2. Opdahl A,
    3. Choi EY,
    4. Almedia ALC,
    5. Kawel N,
    6. Wu CO,
    7. Burke GL,
    8. Liu S,
    9. Liu K,
    10. Bluemke DA,
    11. Lima JAC
    . Left ventricular global function index by magnetic resonance imaging—a novel marker for assessment of cardiac performance for the prediction of cardiovascular events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Hypertension. 2013;61:770–778.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. McMurray JJ,
    2. Adamopoulos S,
    3. Anker SD,
    4. et al
    .; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1787–1847.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Hypertension
April 2013, Volume 61, Issue 4
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    Prognostic Importance of a New Measure of Global Systolic Heart Function in Healthy Adults
    Christie McComb and Colin Berry
    Hypertension. 2013;61:762-764, originally published March 13, 2013
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.199992

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Hypertension.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Prognostic Importance of a New Measure of Global Systolic Heart Function in Healthy Adults
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Hypertension
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Hypertension web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    Prognostic Importance of a New Measure of Global Systolic Heart Function in Healthy Adults
    Christie McComb and Colin Berry
    Hypertension. 2013;61:762-764, originally published March 13, 2013
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.199992
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

  • Cardiology
    • Etiology
      • Hypertension
        • Hypertension

Hypertension

  • About Hypertension
  • Instructions for Authors
  • AHA CME
  • Guidelines and Statements
  • Permissions
  • Journal Policies
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Editorial Office Address:
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231
email: hypertension@heart.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured