Why the study?
Does ultrasonic tissue characterization and myocardial deformation predict left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy?
Does ultrasonic tissue characterization and myocardial deformation predict left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy?
Mean CVIBS and GCS assessed by 2DS imaging are independent predictors of LV reverse remodelling in patients with non-ischaemic DCM.
CVIBS and GCS may predict LV reverse remodelling in non-ischaemic DCM; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
AIMS: This study was to evaluate the relationship between ultrasonic tissue characterization by integrated backscatter (IBS) and myocardial deformation assessed by two-dimensional speckled tracking (2DS) imaging for prediction of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-five consecutive patients with non-ischaemic DCM were enrolled prospectively. The mean cyclic variation of integrated backscatter (CVIBS) was calculated as the mean of the septal and posterior wall CVIBS. LV global longitudinal, radial, and circumferential peak strain (GLS, GRS, and GCS, respectively) and twist were obtained. LV reverse remodelling was decided with follow-up echocardiography 12 months. The GLS, GRS, and GCS were correlated with the mean CVIBS. The mean CVIBS and GCS were significantly larger in the 24 patients who had LV reverse remodelling than the 21 patients who had no LV reverse remodelling and the GRS tended to be larger; the GLS and twist did not differ between the two groups. The mean CVIBS and GCS were independent predictors of LV reverse remodelling. CONCLUSION: Myocardial deformation assessed by 2DS was related to myocardial fibrosis assessed by IBS. LV reverse remodelling was predicted by mean CVIBS and GCS in patients with non-ischaemic DCM and GCS assessed by 2DS imaging is a simple method and therefore it can be readily used in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: