The value of echocardiography in evaluating left cardiac function in patients with restrictive cardiomyopathy
10.3760/cma.j.cn131148-20200623-00520
- VernacularTitle:超声心动图评估限制型心肌病左心室功能的应用价值
- Author:
Wanyu ZHAO
1
;
Zhiling LUO
;
Yunxing DONG
;
Xiaogang ZHAO
;
Delin ZHONG
;
Hui LI
;
Yan SHEN
Author Information
1. 云南省阜外心血管病医院超声科，昆明 650032
- From:
Chinese Journal of Ultrasonography
2020;29(11):921-926
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the application value of conventional echocardiography and two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI) in assessing the left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions in patients with restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM).Methods:Fifteen patients confirmed as RCM by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or pathological biopsy in Fuwei Cardiovascular Hospital of Yunnan Province from September 2017 to June 2020 were selected. According to left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF), they were divided into LVEF retention group(LVEF≥50%, 8 cases) and LVEF reduction group (LVEF<50%, 7 cases). Meanwhile, 20 healthy volunteers were selected as the control group. Conventional echocardiography and 2D-STI were used to evaluate left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, including left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd), LVEF, mitral valve blood flow spectrum peak E/peak A, peak E deceleration time (EDT), tissue Doppler mitral valve ring average early diastolic peak velocity (e′), E/e′ ratio, isovolumetric relaxation time (IVRT), left atrial volume index (LAVI) and speed of tricuspid regurgitation (TVR), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), left ventricular longitudinal strain (LS) and circumferential strain (CS). Then the differences and similarities between the two RCM groups and the control group were compared.Results:There was no significant difference of LVEF between LVEF retention group and the control group ( P>0.05), and LVEF in LVEF reduction group was significantly lower than that in control group ( P<0.05). LVEDd in LVEF retention group was significantly smaller than that of LVEF reduction group ( P<0.05), but was not statistically different from the control group ( P>0.05). Values of E/A, E/e′, LAVI and TVR in LVEF retention group and LVEF reduction group were significantly greater than the control group (all P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two RCM groups ( P<0.05). Values of e′, EDT, IVRT and TAPSE in LVEF retention group and LVEF reduction group were significantly lower than the control group (all P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two RCM groups (all P>0.05). The global LS and LS of AP4, AP3, and AP2 showed significantly different among the 3 groups (all P<0.05). The global and basal, middle, apical segmental CS in LVEF retention group were significantly larger than those in LVEF reduction group (all P<0.05), but they were not significantly different from the control group (all P>0.05). Conclusions:All patients with RCM show left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in conventional echocardiography, and show gradually reduced left ventricular systolic function and left ventricular remodeling. RCM patients with normal LVEF demonstrate decreased myocardial systolic function, and left ventricular global LS could be used as a sensitive indicator to predict myocardial systolic function.
