The Value of Assessing Myocardial Deformation at Recovery after Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography.
10.4250/jcu.2014.22.3.127
- Author:
Hui Jeong HWANG
1
;
Hyae Min LEE
;
In Ho YANG
;
Jung Lok LEE
;
Hyun Young PAK
;
Chang Bum PARK
;
Eun Sun JIN
;
Jin Man CHO
;
Chong Jin KIM
;
Il Suk SOHN
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. issohn@khu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Dobutamine;
Stress echocardiography;
Myocardial stunning;
Speckle tracking imaging
- MeSH:
Constriction, Pathologic;
Coronary Angiography;
Coronary Artery Disease;
Coronary Stenosis;
Dobutamine;
Echocardiography;
Echocardiography, Stress*;
Humans;
Myocardial Stunning;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Thorax
- From:Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound
2014;22(3):127-133
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether performing an assessment of myocardial deformation using speckle tracking imaging during the recovery period after dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) allows detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest discomfort. METHODS: DSE and coronary angiography were performed in 44 patients with chest discomfort. The mean global longitudinal peak systolic strain (GLS) was measured at rest, at low stress (dobutamine infusion rate of 10 microg/kg/min) and at recovery (5 min after cessation of dobutamine infusion) of DSE using automated function imaging with apical views. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was also performed in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. CAD was defined as having a > or = 70% diameter stenosis on coronary angiography or as having a FFR < 0.8. Patients were divided two groups based on the absence or presence of CAD [CAD (-) group vs. CAD (+) group]. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics and results of conventional echocardiography between the two groups. GLS at recovery was lower in the CAD (+) group than in the CAD (-) group (-18.0 +/- 3.4% vs. -21.0 +/- 1.9%, p = 0.003). The optimal cutoff of GLS at recovery for detection of CAD was -19% (sensitivity of 70.6%, specificity of 83.3%). CONCLUSION: Assessment of GLS at recovery of DSE is a reliable and objective method for detection of CAD. This finding may suggest that systolic myocardial stunning remains even after recovery of wall motion abnormalities in patients with CAD.
