PURPOSE: Two-dimensional (2D) strain derived from speckle tracking proved to be feasible and accurate in the quantitative evaluation of myocardial ischemia during stress echocardiography. We compared the accuracy in detecting myocardial ischemia of the transmural segmental analysis with an endocardial specific evaluation in 20 patients undergoing dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and coronary angiography. METHODS: Peak systolic global strain (G-ε) and at the subendocardial level (Endo-ε) were measured off-line at rest, a low dose, and peak stress; then, we compared the results with wall-motion analysis and significant coronary artery disease (CAD > 70% diameter stenosis). Endocardial strain variation from basal to low and peak dose was computed both for global or subendocardial analysis. The utilization of the ROC curve allowed us to derive optimal cutoffs, sensibility and specificity for ischemic segments. RESULTS: The subendocardial analysis at high dose showed to be able to increase significantly the accuracy of the test to detect the ischemic segments (sens 90.2% vs 85.4%; spec 93.1% vs 92.2%). Moreover, at the low dose, the subendocardial analysis showed to be able to increase significantly, mostly the specificity of the test (sens 69.6% vs 68.3%; spec 92.2% vs 86.2%). Notably, the strain subendocardial analysis at low dose showed to reach a high specificity, similar to the peak dose transmural analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of subendocardial strain during DSE is feasible and can increase the accuracy of the test. Moreover, the subendocardial strain during DSE can reach a high specificity, even limiting the test at a low dose infusion.
PURPOSE: Two-dimensional (2D) strain derived from speckle tracking proved to be feasible and accurate in the quantitative evaluation of myocardial ischemia during stress echocardiography. We compared the accuracy in detecting myocardial ischemia of the transmural segmental analysis with an endocardial specific evaluation in 20 patients undergoing dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and coronary angiography. METHODS: Peak systolic global strain (G-ε) and at the subendocardial level (Endo-ε) were measured off-line at rest, a low dose, and peak stress; then, we compared the results with wall-motion analysis and significant coronary artery disease (CAD > 70% diameter stenosis). Endocardial strain variation from basal to low and peak dose was computed both for global or subendocardial analysis. The utilization of the ROC curve allowed us to derive optimal cutoffs, sensibility and specificity for ischemic segments. RESULTS: The subendocardial analysis at high dose showed to be able to increase significantly the accuracy of the test to detect the ischemic segments (sens 90.2% vs 85.4%; spec 93.1% vs 92.2%). Moreover, at the low dose, the subendocardial analysis showed to be able to increase significantly, mostly the specificity of the test (sens 69.6% vs 68.3%; spec 92.2% vs 86.2%). Notably, the strain subendocardial analysis at low dose showed to reach a high specificity, similar to the peak dose transmural analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of subendocardial strain during DSE is feasible and can increase the accuracy of the test. Moreover, the subendocardial strain during DSE can reach a high specificity, even limiting the test at a low dose infusion.