Why the study?
Tissue Doppler imaging offers better sensitivity and specificity than conventional 2D echocardiography for evaluating cardiac dysfunction in cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, prompting an assessment of pooled prevalence using both modalities.
Does tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) compared to conventional 2D echocardiography alter the estimated prevalence and diagnosis of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy in cirrhotic patients?
Does tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) compared to conventional 2D echocardiography alter the estimated prevalence and diagnosis of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy in cirrhotic patients?
Standard 2D echocardiography may lead to the overdiagnosis of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy compared to tissue Doppler imaging, which estimates a lower pooled prevalence of 45%.
2D echocardiography may overestimate cirrhotic cardiomyopathy prevalence; challenges 2005 criteria and supports TDI for refined diagnosis.
The proposed diagnostic criteria for cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM), defines it as documented echocardiographic findings of systolic or diastolic dysfunction (using conventional 2D echocardiogram), with or without electrophysiological abnormalities or elevated biomarkers in cirrhotic patients. In comparison to 2D echocardiogram, tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) has better sensitivity and specificity, when evaluating for cardiac dysfunction. This meta-analysis of 12 selected cohort studies attempted to estimate the pooled prevalence of CCM using either conventional echocardiography or TDI. Using the 2005 criteria, the pooled prevalence of CCM is 61% (P = 0.106). When TDI is used, the prevalence of CCM is at 45% (P = 0.088). Analyzing data of 615 cirrhotic patients, this study estimates the mean population-specific echocardiographic values of cirrhotic patients, including left ventricle ejection fraction (63.52%), deceleration time (229.04 ms), isovolumetric relaxation time (87.71 ms) and E/A ratio (1.04). In comparison to TDI, using standard 2D echocardiography leads to overdiagnosis of CCM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shahvaran et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: