Why the study?
Does Automated function imaging (AFI) accurately assess left ventricular regional wall motion abnormalities compared to visual assessment and SPECT in patients with myocardial infarction?
Does Automated function imaging (AFI) accurately assess left ventricular regional wall motion abnormalities compared to visual assessment and SPECT in patients with myocardial infarction?
Automated function imaging (AFI) provides accurate quantitative assessment of left ventricular regional wall motion abnormalities in patients with myocardial infarction, showing strong agreement with visual and SPECT assessments.
AFI may support quantitative wall motion assessment in MI; leaves open whether it improves outcomes over visual methods.
BACKGROUND: Automated function imaging (AFI) is a recently developed method of calculating the longitudinal peak systolic strains (LS) of the regional left ventricular (LV) wall using speckle tracking echocardiography and displaying them on a single bull's-eye map. The feasibility of AFI in patients with regional LV wall motion abnormalities caused by myocardial infarction (MI) was evaluated by comparison with visual assessment and myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Segmental LS was measured by AFI in 60 patients with MI (67 ± 11 years) and 58 controls (71 ± 9 years). Wall thickening (WT) was measured by SPECT in 20 patients with MI. There was a strong positive linear relationship between the wall motion score index by expert visual assessment and global LS. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis revealed the best cutoff value of 11% < LS to identify hypokinetic segments. The overall accuracy of wall motion scoring by LS in the 2,006 segments was 96.8% (κ = 0.90) compared with visual assessment. The correlation coefficient between LS and WT was R² = 0.65 in the 340 segments. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of LV regional asynergy by AFI showed good agreement with visual and SPECT assessments. AFI is clinically useful for quantitative assessment of LV regional wall motion abnormalities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kusunose et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: