Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Étude de la fonction ventriculaire droite par 2D speckle imaging et échographie tridimensionnelle. Comparaison à l’IRM myocardique

Authors
  • Arnould, M.-A.
  • Gougnot, S.
  • Lemoine, S.
  • Lemoine, J.
  • Aliot, É.
  • Juillière, Y.
  • Selton-Suty, C.
Type
Published Article
Journal
Annales de Cardiologie et d Angéiologie
Publisher
Elsevier
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2008
Accepted Date
Nov 04, 2008
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
74–85
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.ancard.2008.11.002
Source
Elsevier
Keywords
License
Unknown

Abstract

Purpose The echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular (RV) function requires many different parameters. We studied and compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) two markers of RV function derived from new imaging tools: 2D speckle imaging (2DSI) and three dimensional echography. Methods and results Thirty-two patients (19 with RV ejection fraction [RVEF] ≤ 45%) underwent both complete echocardiography – including standard parameters of RV function (fractional area change [FAC], Tei index, systolic velocity of tricuspid annulus by DTI), 3D full-volume acquisition on RV – and MRI for the evaluation of RV volumes and RVEF. 2DSI was applied to high frame rate cine loops centred on the RV free wall with measurement of peak systolic strain (%) in the basal, median and apical segments of this wall. Strain, especially in RV median and apical segments, is reduced in patients with RVEF less or equal to 45% (median strain: −16,39 ± 5,27 vs. −24,74 ± 8,00 [ p = 0,002]; apical strain −13,01 ± 6,84 vs. 22,53 ± 11,32 [ p = 0,03]) with a very good correlation with RVEF ( r = −0,717, p = 0,0001) but also with the usual echographic parameters of RV function, (FAC: r = 0,019; Tei: r = 0,01; peak systolic velocity: r = 0,002). The 3D RVEF is also but poorly correlated with MRI RVEF, ( r = 0,447, p = 0,017). Furthermore, 3D significantly underestimated RV volumes. By multivariate analysis, apical strain ( p = 0,004) and FAC ( p = 0,029) were predictive of a decreased RVEF. Conclusion Apical strain as measured from 2DSI seems a promising parameter in the estimation of RV function. 3D estimation of RVEF is more disappointing because of an important underestimation of RV volumes.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times