| Literature DB >> 29556262 |
Bing Xing1, Ailin Cao2, Wei Sun1, Xiyan Hou3.
Abstract
The relationship between left ventricular diastolic and systolic dyssynchrony in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) was investigated by single-cardiac real-time three-dimensional ultrasonography. A total of 52 patients with HCM were selected in Jining No. 1 People's Hospital from July 2016 to June 2017. Additionally, a total of 52 healthy people were selected to serve as the control group. All participants received real-time two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography to evaluate left ventricular morphology, function and systolic and diastolic function. The relevant parameters included left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic/diastolic sphericity index (ESSI/EDSI), systolic dyssynchrony index (SDI), diastolic dyssynchrony index (DDI), dispersion end systole (DISPES), diastolic dyssynchrony index-late (DDI-late) and dispersion end diastole (DISPED-late). The LVEF of observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group, while LVEDV, LVESV, E/A and E/Ea were significantly higher than those in control group (P<0.05); EDSI, DDI-late and DISPED-late were significantly higher in observation than in control group (P<0.05); ESSI, SDI and DISPES in observation were significantly higher than those in control group (P<0.05); The 16-segment time-volume curve of observation group was disordered without synchronization, while the curve of control group was regular and smooth with synchronization; Pearson's correlation analysis showed that SDI and DDI were positively correlated (P<0.05). In conclusion, three-dimensional ultrasonography can be used to effectively evaluate left ventricular diastolic and systolic dyssynchrony in HCM. The severity of diastolic is positively correlated with systolic dyssynchrony.Entities:
Keywords: correlation; diastolic dyssynchrony; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; systolic dyssynchrony; three-dimensional ultrasonography
Year: 2018 PMID: 29556262 PMCID: PMC5844065 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2018.5872
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
General information of patients.
| Groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | Observation n=52 | Control n=52 | t/χ2 | P-value |
| Age (years) | 30–78 | 30–75 | ||
| Sex (male/female) | 29/23 | 27/25 | 0.039 | 0.844 |
| Average age (years) | 52.76±6.45 | 53.15±7.13 | 0.293 | 0.770 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.73±2.14 | 24.07±1.86 | 0.865 | 0.389 |
| Cultural level | ||||
| Junior high school and below | 11 (21.16) | 12 (23.08) | 0.168 | 0.919 |
| High school and secondary school | 21 (40.38) | 19 (36.54) | ||
| College and above | 20 (38.46) | 21 (40.38) | ||
BMI, body mass index.
Comparison of results of two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasonography.
| Methods | Cases | LVEF (%) | LVEDV (ml) | LVESV (ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-dimensional ultrasonography | 52 | 59.52±3.42 | 104.97±3.84 | 50.76±3.46 |
| Three-dimensional ultrasonography | 52 | 53.78±3.56 | 99.13±3.86 | 43.87±3.27 |
| t-test | 8.385 | 7.735 | 10.436 | |
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume.
Comparison of cardiac function between the two groups of patients.
| Groups | Cases | LVEF (%) | LVEDV (ml) | LVESV (ml) | E/A | E/Ea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 52 | 62.73±3.68 | 91.97±3.64 | 36.76±3.18 | 1.35±0.23 | 7.35±1.16 |
| Observation | 52 | 53.78±3.56 | 99.13±3.86 | 43.87±3.27 | 2.87±0.35 | 13.87±1.23 |
| t-test | 12.605 | 9.732 | 11.240 | 26.172 | 27.809 | |
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume.
Comparison of left ventricular diastolic function between two groups (mean ± SD).
| Groups | Cases | EDSI | DDI-late | DISPED-late |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 52 | 41.52±3.19 | 5.18±0.78 | 21.25±1.16 |
| Observation | 52 | 50.64±3.73 | 7.89±0.95 | 27.64±1.58 |
| t-test | 13.399 | 15.898 | 23.508 | |
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
EDSI, end-diastolic sphericity index; DDI-late, diastolic dyssynchrony index-late; DISPED-late, dispersion end diastole. SD, standard deviation.
Comparison of left ventricular systolic function of two groups of patients (mean ± SD).
| Groups | Cases | ESSI | SDI | DISPES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 52 | 35.54±3.08 | 5.36±1.29 | 16.78±3.09 |
| Observation | 52 | 41.68±3.27 | 8.89±1.64 | 32.82±3.53 |
| t-test | 9.856 | 12.200 | 24.655 | |
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
ESSI, end-systolic sphericity index; SDI, systolic dyssynchrony index; DISPES, dispersion end systole. SD, stardard deviation.
Figure 1.Comparison of diastolic volume-time curve of 16 segments of the observation group.
Figure 2.Comparison of diastolic volume-time curve of 16 segments of the control group.
Figure 3.Correlation analysis between left ventricular diastolic and systolic dyssynchrony. Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis showed that SDI and DDI were positively correlated. SDI, systolic dyssynchrony index; DDI, diastolic dyssynchrony index.