Why the study?
Does tissue Doppler mitral annular systolic velocity (Sm) accurately predict left atrial appendage dysfunction in young patients with acute embolic stroke and sinus rhythm?
Does tissue Doppler mitral annular systolic velocity (Sm) accurately predict left atrial appendage dysfunction in young patients with acute embolic stroke and sinus rhythm?
Tissue Doppler mitral annular systolic velocity (Sm) ≤8 cm/s on transthoracic echocardiography is a highly sensitive and specific predictor of left atrial appendage dysfunction in young patients with acute embolic stroke and sinus rhythm.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sm ≤8 cm/s on TTE may identify LAA dysfunction; leaves open whether it can substitute for TEE in young sinus-rhythm stroke patients.
Background: Trans-esophageal echocardiogram (TEE) is a gold standard test for diagnosis of left atrial (LA) appendage function.Aim: To evaluate left atrial appendage (LAA) dysfunction using mitral annular systolic velocity measured by tissue Doppler imaging "Sm" in acute embolic stroke young patients with sinus rhythm.Methods: Transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were performed in 70 consecutive patients with sinus rhythm without obvious left ventricular dysfunction within 2 weeks after embolic stroke.Two groups were identified: LAA dysfunction [LAA emptying peak flow velocity (LAA-eV) <0.55 m/s, n Z 28, age 52 AE 11 years] and without LAA dysfunction (LAA-eV !0.55 m/s, n Z 42, age 54 AE 10 years) on TEE.Tissue Doppler mitral annular systolic velocity "Sm" was obtained in apical four chambers view on TTE and D-dimer level estimated for all patients.Results: Sm was significantly lower in patients with than in those without LAA dysfunction (P < 0.0001).There was a significant correlation between Sm, LAVI, LAEF%, E/A ratio and LAA-eV in all selected patients groups.The optimum cut-off value of Sm for predicting LAA dysfunction was below or equal 8 cm/s (sensitivity 89.6% and specificity 94.2%).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gaber et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: