Why the study?
Does pulsed Doppler echocardiography reveal distinct tricuspid regurgitant flow patterns in Ebstein's anomaly compared to secondary tricuspid regurgitation?
Does pulsed Doppler echocardiography reveal distinct tricuspid regurgitant flow patterns in Ebstein's anomaly compared to secondary tricuspid regurgitation?
Pulsed Doppler echocardiography demonstrates that the onset of tricuspid regurgitant flow is significantly delayed in Ebstein's anomaly compared to secondary tricuspid regurgitation, reflecting abnormal right ventricular pressure rise.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid noninvasive differentiation of Ebstein's anomaly; leaves open diagnostic utility pending prospective validation.
Pulsed Doppler echocardiography (PDE) was performed in 10 patients with Ebstein's anomaly and 10 cases of tricuspid regurgitation secondary to mitral stenosis. Distal atrialized right ventricle (ATRV): In all patients with Ebstein's anomaly, tricuspid regurgitation flow was recognized by PDE. In this lesion with moderate tricuspid regurgitation, a widely dispersed dot pattern was recorded during systole However, in the cases with severe tricuspid regurgitation a relatively smooth dot pattern was recognized. In the case with marked delay in pressure rise in the right ventricle, PDE showed a bimodal regurgitant flow pattern. The interval between the onset of QRS and that of tricuspid regurgitant flow with right ventricular pressure rise was measured. The interval corrected for heart rate ranged from 0.10 to 0.35 with an average of 0.19 +/- 0.08 sec. In the subjects with secondary tricuspid regurgitation, it ranged from 0.07 to 0.11 sec. This interval was significantly prolonged in Ebstein's anomaly as compared to that in secondary tricuspid regurgitation (p less than 0.001). Proximal ATRV: Tricuspid regurgitant flow was detected in 6 to 10 patients with Ebstein's anomaly. The disturbed flow was less apparent in the proximal ATRV than in the distal ATRV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ichimiya et al. (1981) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: