April 20, 2015Heart
Prognostic value of cardiac time intervals measured by tissue Doppler imaging M-mode in the general population
Key result
In the general population, combined cardiac time intervals (IVRT/ET and MPI) were significant independent predictors of future MACE (p<0.05) and improved c-statistics (0.76 vs 0.75, p<0.01).
Why the study?
Does the measurement of cardiac time intervals by tissue Doppler imaging M-mode predict major cardiovascular events in the general population?
Population
1,915 participants from the general population in a prospective community-based study
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 10.8 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May aid MACE risk stratification; leaves open whether intervals warrant routine use or prospective validation.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=1,915)
Structured PICO
Does the measurement of cardiac time intervals by tissue Doppler imaging M-mode predict major cardiovascular events in the general population?
P
Population
1,915 participants from the general population followed for a median of 10.8 years to evaluate the prognostic value of cardiac time intervals.
E
Exposure
Measurement of cardiac time intervals (IVRT, IVCT, ET, IVCT/ET, IVRT/ET, and MPI) using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) M-mode through the mitral leaflet
O
Outcome
Combined endpoint MACE (ischaemic heart disease, heart failure or cardiac death) at median 10.8 years follow-upcomposite
Main Result
p-value: p=<0.05
Combined cardiac time intervals (IVRT/ET and MPI) measured by tissue Doppler imaging provide independent and additive prognostic value for predicting MACE in the general population.
Cite This Study
Biering‐Sørensen et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in general population (n=1,915). Cardiac time intervals (IVRT/ET and MPI) was evaluated on MACE (ischaemic heart disease, heart failure or cardiac death) (p=<0.05). In the general population, combined cardiac time intervals (IVRT/ET and MPI) were significant independent predictors of future MACE (p<0.05) and improved c-statistics (0.76 vs 0.75, p<0.01).