Key result
Velocity vector imaging revealed significant variation in dyssynchrony among subjects with no known cardiac disease and was comparable to tissue Doppler imaging for assessing longitudinal parameters.
Why the study?
What is the distribution of dyssynchrony in subjects with no known cardiac disease, and is velocity vector imaging (VVI) comparable to tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) for its assessment?
Cross-Sectional (n=133)
What is the distribution of dyssynchrony in subjects with no known cardiac disease, and is velocity vector imaging (VVI) comparable to tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) for its assessment?
Significant variation in dyssynchrony parameters exists in subjects with no known cardiac disease and normal EF/QRS, and velocity vector imaging is a comparable alternative to tissue Doppler imaging for assessing these parameters.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Significant normal variation in dyssynchrony warrants cautious thresholds; leaves open VVI utility versus TDI.
Data on the distribution of dyssynchrony in subjects with normal ejection fraction (EF) and normal QRS are scarce. We studied 100 subjects with no known cardiac disease (52% male, mean age 60 ± 17 years) using velocity vector imaging (VVI). Seventeen percent had septal to lateral (S-L) wall longitudinal delay >75 msec, 63% of subjects had S-L wall radial delay >75 msec, and 25% had a circumferential opposing wall delay >100 msec. Those with circumferential opposing wall delay of >100 msec had a lower EF (57 ± 5% vs. 62 ± 5%, P < 0.05). In an additional group of 33 patients, we compared the longitudinal dyssynchrony parameters as assessed by VVI and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) and found them to be comparable. In conclusion, we find significant variation in time to peak velocities in subjects with no known cardiac disease, who had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction and QRS duration. VVI is comparable to TDI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parameswaran et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in No known cardiac disease (n=133). Velocity vector imaging (VVI) vs. Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) was evaluated on Distribution of dyssynchrony and comparison of longitudinal dyssynchrony parameters between VVI and TDI. Velocity vector imaging revealed significant variation in dyssynchrony among subjects with no known cardiac disease and was comparable to tissue Doppler imaging for assessing longitudinal parameters.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: