BACKGROUND: Left ventricular dyssynchrony is often diagnosed by comparing velocity curves from Doppler tissue images of two or more myocardial regions. Velocity curves are generated by placing sample volumes or regions of interest (ROIs) within the myocardium. ROIs need to be manually relocated to maintain a midmyocardial location as the heart moves, but are frequently left in a stationary position. The error caused by use of a stationary ROI may affect the diagnosis of dyssynchrony, but this has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that using a stationary ROI to quantify dyssynchrony from Doppler tissue images would affect the diagnosis of dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure. METHODS: We quantified dyssynchrony in 18 patients with heart failure using 4 published dyssynchrony parameters: septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak, and cross-correlation delay (XCD). Each dyssynchrony parameter was measured using both tracked and stationary ROIs. RESULTS: Use of a stationary ROI did not change the diagnosis of dyssynchrony when using XCD. However, ROI tracking changed the diagnosis of dyssynchrony in 17%, 11%, and 17% of patients when using septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, and SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak, respectively. XCD showed the lowest percent difference between tracked and stationary ROIs (4 +/- 9% vs 22 +/- 53%, 50 +/- 167%, and 12 +/- 30%, respectively, for septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, and SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak). CONCLUSION: Manual ROI tracking is required when using conventional time-to-peak parameters to diagnose dyssynchrony. XCD diagnosis of dyssynchrony can be performed accurately with a stationary ROI.
BACKGROUND:Left ventricular dyssynchrony is often diagnosed by comparing velocity curves from Doppler tissue images of two or more myocardial regions. Velocity curves are generated by placing sample volumes or regions of interest (ROIs) within the myocardium. ROIs need to be manually relocated to maintain a midmyocardial location as the heart moves, but are frequently left in a stationary position. The error caused by use of a stationary ROI may affect the diagnosis of dyssynchrony, but this has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that using a stationary ROI to quantify dyssynchrony from Doppler tissue images would affect the diagnosis of dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure. METHODS: We quantified dyssynchrony in 18 patients with heart failure using 4 published dyssynchrony parameters: septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak, and cross-correlation delay (XCD). Each dyssynchrony parameter was measured using both tracked and stationary ROIs. RESULTS: Use of a stationary ROI did not change the diagnosis of dyssynchrony when using XCD. However, ROI tracking changed the diagnosis of dyssynchrony in 17%, 11%, and 17% of patients when using septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, and SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak, respectively. XCD showed the lowest percent difference between tracked and stationary ROIs (4 +/- 9% vs 22 +/- 53%, 50 +/- 167%, and 12 +/- 30%, respectively, for septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, and SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak). CONCLUSION: Manual ROI tracking is required when using conventional time-to-peak parameters to diagnose dyssynchrony. XCD diagnosis of dyssynchrony can be performed accurately with a stationary ROI.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeroen J Bax; Sander G Molhoek; Lieselot van Erven; Paul J Voogd; Soeresh Somer; Eric Boersma; Paul Steendijk; Martin J Schalij; Ernst E Van der Wall Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Cheuk-Man Yu; Elaine Chau; John E Sanderson; Katherine Fan; Man-Oi Tang; Wing-Hong Fung; Hong Lin; Shun-Ling Kong; Yui-Ming Lam; Michael R S Hill; Chu-Pak Lau Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jesper Kjaergaard; Josef Korinek; Marek Belohlavek; Jae K Oh; Peter Sogaard; Christian Hassager Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Brandon K Fornwalt; William W Sprague; John D Carew; John D Merlino; Derek A Fyfe; Angel R León; John N Oshinski Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Kan N Hor; Janaka P Wansapura; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; William M Gottliebson; Michael D Taylor; Richard J Czosek; Sherif F Nagueh; Nandakishore Akula; Eugene S Chung; Woodrow D Benson; Wojciech Mazur Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 5.364