Why the study?
Does contrast left ventriculography acutely alter left ventricular performance as measured by echocardiographic systolic time intervals in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does contrast left ventriculography acutely alter left ventricular performance as measured by echocardiographic systolic time intervals in patients with coronary artery disease?
Echocardiography-derived systolic time intervals (PEP/LVET) reliably measure LV function and demonstrate transient improvement in ventricular function immediately following contrast left ventriculography.
Transient LV improvement post-ventriculography may not reflect baseline status; leaves open optimal echo timing in CAD catheterization.
The ratio of the preejection period to the left ventricular ejection time (PEP/LVET), obtained from the aortic root echocardiogram, was studied immediately before and after left ventricular (LV) cineangiography in 23 patients with documented coronary artery disease. The initial PEP/LVET ratio was inversely related to LV ejection fraction (r = -.78, P less than or equal to .001). Repeat measurements taken 60 s after angiography showed a significant decrease from a mean value of .36 +/- .13 to .27 +/- .08 (P less than or equal to .005). Furthermore, when patients were divided into those with an initial PEP/LVET value above and below 0.40, those with a higher value showed a significantly greater decrease following contrast left ventriculography (mean decrease, 0.16 vs 0.06, P less than or equal to .01). This study indicates that systolic time intervals derived from echocardiography are a reliable noninvasive measure of LV function, and that ventricular function improves following left ventriculography, with the degree of improvement being inversely related to initial function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert Ćhilton (1980) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: