4.7 Article

Comparison of deformation imaging and velocity imaging for detecting regional inducible ischaemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 17, 页码 1517-1525

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.05.014

关键词

tissue Doppler; strain rate imaging; ischaemia; dobutamine stress; echocardiography; coronary disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To determine whether Doppler based myocardial tissue velocity imaging (TVI) or strain rate imaging (SRI) is more accurate in detecting stress-induced ischaemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE). Methods and results Regional myocardial velocity, displacement, strain rate and strain patterns during DSE were investigated in 44 routine patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Simultaneous perfusion scintigraphy defined regional ischaemia. Curves and curved-M-mode patterns were analysed and receiver-operating-characteristics of TVI and SRI parameters were compared by their area under the curve (AUC) in the receiver-operating-characteristics. In non-ischaemic segments, peak systolic velocity and strain rate increased significantly. Unlike SRI, TVI parameters had higher values in basal than in apical segments. In 47 segments of 19 segments DSE-induced ischaemia, which was proven by scintigraphy. In ischaemia, velocity and strain rate increased less. Post-systolic shortening (PSS) was always seen in SRI but not regularly in TVI. Peak systolic velocity and systolic displacement were the best TVI-parameters of stress-induced ischaemia (AUC 0.68 and 0.77, respectively.), in SRI it was the ratio of PSS and maximal, segmental deformation (AUC = 0.95, p < 0.0001). Conclusion Compared to TVI, SRI parameters showed no major apico-basal gradient and had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy, comparable to conventional reading. SRI thus appears superior to TVI for regional ischaemia detection during DSE and may be preferred to support conventional DSE reading. (C) 2004 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据