Why the study?
Does the coronary slow flow phenomenon impair longitudinal LV systolic and diastolic functions compared to normal coronary flow?
Does the coronary slow flow phenomenon impair longitudinal LV systolic and diastolic functions compared to normal coronary flow?
The coronary slow flow phenomenon does not appear to significantly impair longitudinal left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions as assessed by 2-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography.
CSFP may reduce lateral tissue Doppler velocities without affecting strain; leaves open its relevance to subclinical LV function.
OBJECTIVES: The coronary slow flow phenomenon is defined as the slow progression of an angiographic contrast agent to the distal part of the coronary arteries on selective coronary angiography in the absence of stenosis. There are some studies with different results about the effect of this phenomenon on left ventricular (LV) function. The aim of our study was to evaluate the longitudinal LV function in the coronary slow flow phenomenon using 2-dimensional (2D) speckle-tracking echocardiography. METHODS: In a study with a patient-to-patient matched design, 36 patients with the coronary slow flow phenomenon and 36 individuals with normal coronary flow matched for age (±5 years), sex, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus were compared in terms of the longitudinal LV systolic and diastolic functions by pulsed wave tissue Doppler echocardiography and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography-derived indices. RESULTS: Lateral s' and e' waves were lower in the patients with the coronary slow flow phenomenon, but there were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the other tissue Doppler echocardiographic indices and longitudinal systolic strain and systolic and diastolic strain rates derived by 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that the coronary slow flow phenomenon could not impair the longitudinal LV systolic and diastolic functions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Narimani et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: