Why the study?
Do echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular ejection phase indices accurately reflect angiographic measurements in patients with severe aortic regurgitation?
Do echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular ejection phase indices accurately reflect angiographic measurements in patients with severe aortic regurgitation?
Linear echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular wall motion may not accurately reflect significant myocardial dysfunction in patients with severe aortic regurgitation due to altered left ventricular geometry from volume overload.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LAO and echo EF may miss LV dysfunction in severe AR; leaves open optimal views for assessment in volume overload.
Echocardiographic (echo) measurements of left ventricular ejection phase indices--ejection fraction, percent shortening of the minor diameter (%deltaD), and velocity of circumferential fiber shortening (Vcf)--are said to be accurate reflections of their angiographic (angio) counterparts. Most studies correlating echo and angio left ventricular function parameters have included relatively few patients with aortic regurgitation. Echo and angio measurements of left ventricular ejection phase indices thus might not correlate in these patients in whom left ventricular geometry may have been altered due to the volume overload. To test this hypothesis, left ventricular ejection phase indices were determined by angiography and echocardiography and compared in 20 patients with isolated, symptomatic, severe aortic regurgitation. Ejection fraction, %deltaD, and Vcf by LAO cineangiograms and echo were uniformly higher than corresponding measurements from RAO angio, and were often normal in the presence of other indicators of significant left ventricular dysfunction. We conclude that the usual, linear echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular wall motion may not reflect significant myocardial dysfunction in patients with severe aortic regurgitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnson et al. (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: