Purpose: Because of its diagnostic and prognostic value, right ventricular strain assessed by speckle-tracking imaging (RVS) has been incorporated into echocardiographic guidelines. However, it suffers from limitations including the need of good image quality and of dedicated software with inter-vendor variability. We hypothesized that RV free wall longitudinal fractional shortening (LFS) could be used as a substitute to RVS, without suffering from the aforementioned limitations. Methods: We aimed to establish in a series of non-selected consecutive patients in sinus rhythm the value of LFS, calculated as [-(TAPSE/RVdiastolic length)] and of several common echocardiographic and Doppler parameters to predict an abnormal RV function, defined as RVS > − 20.2%. Results: Among 144 consecutive patients, poor image quality precluded the assessment of RVS and of LFS in 31 and 4 patients, respectively (P = 0.0018), resulting in a final study group of 113 patients. The intraclass correlation coefficients for inter- and intra-observer variability were 0.97 (95% CI 0.92; 0.98) and 0.93 (CI 0.92; 0.98) for LFS and RVS, respectively. Among all tested RV function indices, LFS best correlated with RVS (R 0.97, 95% CI 0.81; 0.91). Bland–Altman analysis for the comparison between LFS and RVS showed no systematic bias. The area under the ROC-curve of the various RV function indices to detect abnormal RVS was best for LFS (0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1), with sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value of 83%, 96%, 96%, and 83%, respectively. Conclusion: LFS performs reasonably well to predict abnormal RVS and is more often feasible than RVS.

目的：由于其诊断和预后价值，通过散斑追踪成像 (RVS) 评估的右心室应变已被纳入超声心动图指南。然而，它受到限制，包括需要良好的图像质量和具有不同供应商可变性的专用软件。我们假设 RV 游离壁纵向分数缩短 (LFS) 可用作 RVS 的替代品，而不会受到上述限制。方作为 RVS > - 20.2%。结果：在 144 名连续患者中，P  = 0.0018），最终形成 113 名患者的研究组。LFS 和 RVS 的组内和组内观察者变异性的组内相关系数分别为 0.97（95% CI 0.92；0.98）和 0.93（CI 0.92；0.98）。在所有测试的 RV 功能指标中，LFS 与 RVS 的相关性最好（R 0.97，95% CI 0.81；0.91）。用于 LFS 和 RVS 之间比较的 Bland-Altman 分析显示没有系统偏差。各种 RV 功能指标检测 RVS 异常的 ROC 曲线下面积最适合 LFS（0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1），敏感性、特异性、阴性和阳性预测值分别为 83%、96%、96 % 和 83%，分别。结论：LFS 在预测异常 RVS 方面表现相当好，并且比 RVS 更经常可行。