Why the study?
Does Doppler myocardial imaging and strain rate imaging improve the quantification of regional wall motion during stress echocardiography compared to conventional echocardiography in patients with chest pain and suspected CAD?
Does Doppler myocardial imaging and strain rate imaging improve the quantification of regional wall motion during stress echocardiography compared to conventional echocardiography in patients with chest pain and suspected CAD?
Doppler myocardial imaging and strain rate imaging provide a feasible, accurate, and quantitative alternative to subjective visual assessment during stress echocardiography.
Supports strain imaging for quantitative stress echo assessment; leaves open prospective outcome validation in suspected CAD.
Stress echocardiography has become a common non-invasive test in patients with chest pain and known or suspected coronary artery disease, but, as with exercise electrocardiography, it shows several major limitations. Analysis of gray-scale images based on subjective visual interpretation of wall motion and thickening has considerable variability even among experts. Doppler myocardial imaging and strain rate imaging echocardiography provides additional information in comparison with conventional echocardiography. These techniques provide quantification of regional wall motion at rest and during stress. Quantification of both systolic and diastolic myocardial function by either Doppler myocardial imaging or strain rate imaging mapping during dobutamine stress test has been shown to be a feasible, accurate, non-invasive tool that should be considered to be a sensitive alternative to the present echocardiographic and scintigraphic imaging techniques for stress tests. Time consuming off-line analysis of color images is required in the present state of technology. However, these non-invasive techniques are rapidly evolving and expanding. Further refinements in signal processing and quantitative analysis are likely in the near future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caso et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: