BACKGROUND: Residual ischemia detection after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) using visual analysis is challenging. The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of two-dimensional speckle-tracking strain DSE to detect significant coronary artery disease (CAD) after STEMI. METHODS: First STEMI patients (n = 105; mean age, 60 ± 11 years; 86% men) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention undergoing full-protocol DSE at 3 months and repeat coronary angiography within 1 year were retrospectively included. Using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography, segmental and global left ventricular peak longitudinal systolic strain (PLSS) at rest and peak stress and change (Δ) in PLSS were measured. Significant CAD was defined as detection of >70% diameter stenosis at coronary angiography. RESULTS: In total, 1,653 (93%) and 1,645 (92%) segments were analyzable at rest and peak stress, respectively. At follow-up, 38 patients (36%) showed significant angiographic CAD. These patients demonstrated greater worsening in global PLSS from rest to peak (-16.8 ± 0.5% to -12.6 ± 0.5%) compared with patients without significant CAD (-16.6 ± 0.4% to -14.3 ± 0.3%; group-stage interaction P < .001). The optimal cutoff of ΔPLSS for the detection of significant CAD on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was ≥1.9% (area under the curve, 0.70; sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 46%; accuracy, 60%). Using a sentinel segment approach (apex, midposterior, and midinferior for the left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary artery territories, respectively), larger segmental ΔPLSS was also independently associated with significant CAD (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiographic strain analysis is feasible on DSE after STEMI and represents a promising new technique to detect significant angiographic CAD at follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Residual ischemia detection after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) using visual analysis is challenging. The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of two-dimensional speckle-tracking strain DSE to detect significant coronary artery disease (CAD) after STEMI. METHODS: First STEMI patients (n = 105; mean age, 60 ± 11 years; 86% men) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention undergoing full-protocol DSE at 3 months and repeat coronary angiography within 1 year were retrospectively included. Using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography, segmental and global left ventricular peak longitudinal systolic strain (PLSS) at rest and peak stress and change (Δ) in PLSS were measured. Significant CAD was defined as detection of >70% diameter stenosis at coronary angiography. RESULTS: In total, 1,653 (93%) and 1,645 (92%) segments were analyzable at rest and peak stress, respectively. At follow-up, 38 patients (36%) showed significant angiographic CAD. These patients demonstrated greater worsening in global PLSS from rest to peak (-16.8 ± 0.5% to -12.6 ± 0.5%) compared with patients without significant CAD (-16.6 ± 0.4% to -14.3 ± 0.3%; group-stage interaction P < .001). The optimal cutoff of ΔPLSS for the detection of significant CAD on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was ≥1.9% (area under the curve, 0.70; sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 46%; accuracy, 60%). Using a sentinel segment approach (apex, midposterior, and midinferior for the left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary artery territories, respectively), larger segmental ΔPLSS was also independently associated with significant CAD (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiographic strain analysis is feasible on DSE after STEMI and represents a promising new technique to detect significant angiographic CAD at follow-up.
Authors: Lidia Capotosto; Francesco Massoni; Simone De Sio; Serafino Ricci; Antonio Vitarelli Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Kana Fujikura; Mohammed Makkiya; Muhammad Farooq; Yun Xing; Wayne Humphrey; Mohammad Hashim Mustehsan; Mario J Garcia; Cynthia C Taub Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jae Hun Park; Jong Shin Woo; Shin Ju; Su Woong Jung; Insoo Lee; Jin Bae Kim; Soo Joong Kim; Weon Kim; Woo-Shik Kim; Kwon Sam Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Amir Hodzic; Boris Chayer; Diya Wang; Jonathan Porée; Guy Cloutier; Paul Milliez; Hervé Normand; Damien Garcia; Eric Saloux; Francois Tournoux Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Concetta Pastore; Giulia Elena Mandoli; Francesco Contorni; Luna Cavigli; Marta Focardi; Flavio D'Ascenzi; Giuseppe Patti; Sergio Mondillo; Matteo Cameli Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.411