| Literature DB >> 24433339 |
R Suzuki1, H Matsumoto, T Teshima, Y Mochizuki, H Koyama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systolic dysfunction is associated with poor outcomes in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease. However, assessment of systolic variables by conventional echocardiographic methods is difficult in these dogs because of mitral regurgitation (MR). HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that assessment of systolic function by dobutamine stress may identify systolic dysfunction in dogs with MR, and that 2-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) could quantitatively evaluate myocardial function. ANIMALS: Anesthetized dogs with experimentally induced MR.Entities:
Keywords: Mitral valve disease; Myocardium; Speckle-tracking; Torsion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24433339 PMCID: PMC4858017 DOI: 10.1111/jvim.12293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vet Intern Med ISSN: 0891-6640 Impact factor: 3.333
Hemodynamic and standard echocardiography data for baseline (without dobutamine infusion) at before and 3 and 6 months after induction of mitral regurgitation.
| Pre | 3 Months | 6 Months | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heart rate (bpm) | 91.1 ± 26.3 | 127.3 ± 48.6 | 102.2 ± 27.5 |
| Peak systolic LV pressure (mmHg) | 102.2 ± 20.6 | 92.4 ± 21.5 | 80.6 ± 8.0 |
| Invasive dp/dt (mmHg/s) | 2,207.2 ± 377.4 | 1,630 ± 552.9 | 1,331.4 ± 156.5 |
| LA/Ao | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.2 |
| LVIDd (mm) | 26.3 ± 2.5 | 38.7 ± 4.9 | 41.8 ± 2.8 |
| EDVI (mL/m2) | 47.6 ± 11.1 | 90.0 ± 9.1 | 117.9 ± 11.0 |
| TSVI (mL/m2) | 60.5 ± 12.2 | 113.8 ± 42.9 | 153.0 ± 20.8 |
| RF (%) | N.A. | 43.7 ± 20.9 | 56.8 ± 10.1 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
LV, left ventricular; dp/dt, peak positive first derivatives of the left ventricular pressure; LA/Ao, left atrial‐to‐aortic root ratio; LVIDd, end‐diastolic left ventricular internal dimension; EDVI, end‐diastolic volume index; TSVI, total stroke volume index; RF, regurgitant fraction; N.A., Not applied.
Within a row, values differed significantly from pre values.
Standard echocardiography data for baseline (without dobutamine infusion) and dobutamine infusion (10 μg/kg/min) before and 3 and 6 months after induction of mitral regurgitation.
| Pre | 3 Months | 6 Months | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LVIDs (mm) | |||
| Baseline | 19.7 ± 3.6 | 27.0 ± 3.9 | 28.3 ± 1.2 |
| Dobutamine | 14.3 ± 2.3 | 22.0 ± 6.6 | 21.8 ± 0.9 |
| FS (%) | |||
| Baseline | 25.1 ± 11.8 | 29.9 ± 8.6 | 32.2 ± 2.6 |
| Dobutamine | 49.9 ± 11.1 | 43.3 ± 18.5 | 42.9 ± 8.6 |
| LV PEP/ET | |||
| Baseline | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.29 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.07 |
| Dobutamine | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.10 |
| EF (%) | |||
| Baseline | 59.5 ± 6.1 | 57.3 ± 16.4 | 62.3 ± 2.7 |
| Dobutamine | 62.0 ± 11.1 | 62.5 ± 14.5 | 69.3 ± 6.1 |
| ESVI (mL/m2) | |||
| Baseline | 19.8 ± 6.8 | 37.9 ± 13.5 | 44.6 ± 6.5 |
| Dobutamine | 17.2 ± 5.9 | 32.1 ± 9.3 | 30.7 ± 3.8 |
| Diastolic sphericity | |||
| Baseline | 1.72 ± 0.09 | 1.36 ± 0.15 | 1.29 ± 0.07 |
| Dobutamine | 1.73 ± 0.07 | 1.38 ± 0.12 | 1.29 ± 0.10 |
| Systolic sphericity | |||
| Baseline | 1.85 ± 0.22 | 1.51 ± 0.25 | 1.32 ± 0.13 |
| Dobutamine | 1.95 ± 0.20 | 1.56 ± 0.21 | 1.44 ± 0.10 |
| RWT | |||
| Baseline | 0.58 ± 0.06 | 0.42 ± 0.14 | 0.42 ± 0.08 |
| Dobutamine | 0.64 ± 0.08 | 0.47 ± 0.12 | 0.49 ± 0.07 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
LVIDs, end‐systolic left ventricular internal dimension; FS, fractional shortening; LV PEP/ET, left ventricular pre‐ejection period‐to‐ejection time ratio; EF, ejection fraction; ESVI, end‐systolic volume index; RWT, Relative wall thickness.
Within a row, values differed significantly from pre values at rest.
Within a row, values differed significantly from 3‐month values at rest.
Within a row, values differed significantly from dobutamine responsive values at pre (control).
Peak systolic 2‐dimensional speckle‐tracking echocardiography data for baseline (without dobutamine infusion) and dobutamine infusion (10 μg/kg/min) before and 3 and 6 months after induction of mitral regurgitation.
| Pre | 3 Months | 6 Months | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basal rotation (°) | |||
| Baseline | −3.0 ± 2.3 | −1.6 ± 2.1 | −2.8 ± 2.7 |
| Dobutamine | −4.9 ± 2.8 | −2.5 ± 1.3 | −4.4 ± 3.2 |
| Basal rotation rate (°/s) | |||
| Baseline | −78.4 ± 45.5 | −43.5 ± 22.4 | −67.1 ± 29.3 |
| Dobutamine | −128.8 ± 53.3 | −112.6 ± 40.2 | −112.0 ± 75.2 |
| Apical rotation (°) | |||
| Baseline | 12.1 ± 12.0 | 4.9 ± 6.2 | 4.6 ± 4.3 |
| Dobutamine | 20.6 ± 2.8 | 12.1 ± 7.3 | 10.5 ± 4.8 |
| Apical rotation rate (°/s) | |||
| Baseline | 122.2 ± 85.8 | 57.7 ± 46.3 | 62.6 ± 51.2 |
| Dobutamine | 230.0 ± 64.4 | 104.8 ± 77.1 | 124.7 ± 59.7 |
| Torsion (°) | |||
| Baseline | 12.7 ± 6.7 | 6.2 ± 4.5 | 7.6 ± 3.2 |
| Dobutamine | 23.8 ± 3.6 | 15.9 ± 8.1 | 14.2 ± 2.4 |
| Torsion rate (°/s) | |||
| Baseline | 158.8 ± 79.1 | 67.8 ± 36.5 | 78.0 ± 30.7 |
| Dobutamine | 272.4 ± 66.9 | 178.1 ± 69.3 | 152.5 ± 60.8 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
Within a row, values differed significantly from dobutamine responsive values at pre (control).
Figure 1Correlations between peak systolic torsion (A) and torsion rate (B), and invasive peak positive first derivatives of the left ventricular pressure (dp/dt) in overall dogs in this study.