Key result
Doppler myocardial velocity gradient during rapid ventricular filling was significantly lower in RCM patients compared to CP patients (1.9 vs 8.7 s-1, P<0.01), allowing for their discrimination.
Why the study?
Does Doppler myocardial velocity gradient (MVG) differentiate between restrictive cardiomyopathy and constrictive pericarditis?
Case-Control (n=55)
Does Doppler myocardial velocity gradient (MVG) differentiate between restrictive cardiomyopathy and constrictive pericarditis?
Doppler myocardial velocity gradient measured from the LV posterior wall during early diastole effectively discriminates restrictive cardiomyopathy from constrictive pericarditis.
May aid noninvasive RCM-CP differentiation in older adults; hypothesis-generating and requires larger validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The differential diagnosis between restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) and constrictive pericarditis (CP) is challenging and, despite combined information from different diagnostic tests, surgical exploration is often necessary. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of 55 subjects (mean age, 63+/-11 years; 36 men and 19 women) were enrolled in the study; 15 had RCM, 10 had CP, and 30 were age-matched, normal controls. The diagnosis of RCM was supported by a biopsy; in the CP group, the diagnosis was confirmed either surgically or at autopsy. All patients underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram that included the assessment of Doppler myocardial velocity gradient (MVG), as measured from the left ventricular posterior wall during the predetermined phases of the cardiac cycle. MVG was lower (P<0.01) in RCM patients compared with both CP patients and normal controls during ventricular ejection (2. 8+/-1.2 versus 4.4+/-1.0 and 4.7+/-0.8 s(-1), respectively) and rapid ventricular filling (1.9+/-0.8 versus 8.7+/-1.7 and 3.7+/-1.4 s(-1), respectively). Additionally, during isovolumic relaxation, MVG was positive in RCM patients and negative in both CP patients and normal controls (0.7+/-0.4 versus -1.0+/-0.6 and -0.4+/-0.3 s(-1), respectively; P<0.01). During atrial contraction, MVG was similarly low (P<0.01) in both RCM and CP patients compared with normal controls (1.6+/-1.7 and 1.7+/-1.8 versus 3.8+/-0.9 s(-1), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Doppler myocardial imaging-derived MVG, as measured from the left ventricular posterior wall in early diastole during both isovolumic relaxation and rapid ventricular filling, allows for the discrimination of RCM from CP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palka et al. (2000) conducted a case-control in Restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) and constrictive pericarditis (CP) (n=55). Doppler myocardial velocity gradient (MVG) vs. Constrictive pericarditis (CP) and normal controls was evaluated on Doppler myocardial velocity gradient (MVG) during rapid ventricular filling (p=<0.01). Doppler myocardial velocity gradient during rapid ventricular filling was significantly lower in RCM patients compared to CP patients (1.9 vs 8.7 s-1, P<0.01), allowing for their discrimination.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: