Why the study?
Does polycystic ovary syndrome alter left ventricular function as measured by Doppler echocardiography compared to healthy controls?
Does polycystic ovary syndrome alter left ventricular function as measured by Doppler echocardiography compared to healthy controls?
Untreated polycystic ovary syndrome does not appear to significantly alter left ventricular systolic or diastolic function as assessed by conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiography compared to matched healthy controls.
No indication for routine LV assessment in PCOS; leaves open longer-term or comorbidity effects on cardiac function.
PURPOSE: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is frequently accompanied by the presence of cardiovascular risk factors. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the echocardiographic profiles of patients with PCOS with those of healthy subjects by using conventional echocardiographic methods and tissue Doppler imaging. METHODS: The study population consisted of 26 untreated patients with PCOS and 24 healthy controls who were mathced with respect to age and body mass index. In addition to standard two dimensional and M-mode measurements, color Doppler M-mode of left ventricular inflow propagation velocities (Vp), pulmonary venous flow measurements, transmitral valve flows and tissue Doppler imaging of the mitral annulus and basal wall were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with PCOS and control subjects with respect to ejection fraction, mitral E/A ratio, deceleration time, isovolumic relaxation time, Vp and pulmonary venous velocities. The tissue Doppler profiles of patients with PCOS were also found to be similar to those of controls. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there are no significant differences in certain conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiographic measures of cardiac function between patients with PCOS and healthy control subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tekin et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: