Indian heart journal · 2019
Comparison of three-dimensional echocardiography and speckle tracking echocardiography in quantification and mapping of intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bhambhani Anupam, Mathew Amalu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to compare two advanced methods of evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (LVMD), the speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) and the three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE).
METHODS: One hundred thirty-six subjects, with or without LV dysfunction and with or without bundle branch block (BBB), were included in this study, designed to investigate agreement between magnitude and spatial pattern of LVMD as assessed by 3DE and STE. The frequency and severity of LVMD and localization of most asynchronous segments were compared.
RESULTS: Both 3DE and STE revealed progressive rise in frequency and magnitude of LVMD with increasing disease severity. Dyssynchrony was dependent on left ventricle ejection fraction rather than the QRS duration. The frequency and magnitude of dyssynchrony were maximum in patients having LV dysfunction with left BBB. Compared with STE, 3DE diagnosed LVMD more frequently in patients having LV dysfunction with narrow QRS (17.6% vs 60.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). When the two methods were compared for localization of most asynchronous segments, the results matched only in about 50% cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Both 3DE and STE provided consistent results with progressive rise in magnitude of LVMD, correlating with disease severity. 3DE diagnosed more patients as having LVMD in those having LV dysfunction with narrow QRS. The most delayed segment assessed by two methods matched only in about half the cases. Correlation with clinical CRT responsiveness is needed to conclude which method is more accurate in dyssynchrony mapping for targeted lead placement.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-six subjects, with or without LV dysfunction and with or without bundle branch block (BBB), were included in this study, designed to investigate agreement between magnitude and spatial pattern of LVMD as assessed by 3DE and STE. The frequency and severity of LVMD and localization of most asynchronous segments were compared.
RESULTS: Both 3DE and STE revealed progressive rise in frequency and magnitude of LVMD with increasing disease severity. Dyssynchrony was dependent on left ventricle ejection fraction rather than the QRS duration. The frequency and magnitude of dyssynchrony were maximum in patients having LV dysfunction with left BBB. Compared with STE, 3DE diagnosed LVMD more frequently in patients having LV dysfunction with narrow QRS (17.6% vs 60.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). When the two methods were compared for localization of most asynchronous segments, the results matched only in about 50% cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Both 3DE and STE provided consistent results with progressive rise in magnitude of LVMD, correlating with disease severity. 3DE diagnosed more patients as having LVMD in those having LV dysfunction with narrow QRS. The most delayed segment assessed by two methods matched only in about half the cases. Correlation with clinical CRT responsiveness is needed to conclude which method is more accurate in dyssynchrony mapping for targeted lead placement.