Diagnostic value of dobutamine stress Doppler tissue imaging in diabetic patients with suspected coronary artery disease

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is often silent in diabetic patients, and it is typically in ad-vanced stages of development by the time it manifests. Various forms of stress testing have been investigated to detect obstructive CAD in diabetes mellitus. Ob-jectives: To assess the diagnostic value of dobutamine stress pulsed-wave Doppler tissue imaging (DTI) compared with standard wall motion analysis in de-tection of myocardial ischemia in diabetic patients with suspected CAD. Methods: The study comprised 46 diabetic patients with suspected CAD underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) with DTI within 4 weeks before coronary angiography(CA). Dobutamine infusion started at 5 µ/kg/min and in-creased up to 40 µ/kg/min with additional atropine during submaximal heart rate responses. In addition to wall-motion score index (WMSI) analysis, pulsed- wave DTI examination of basal and mid segments of posteroseptal, lateral, anterior, inferior and antero- septal walls was performed. Myocardial velocities were measured at rest in the apical 4, 3 and 2-cham- ber views. The measurements were repeated at low dose (10 - 15 µ/kg/min) and at peak stress (40 µ/kg/min). DTI measurements included peak systolic velocity (S), peak early diastolic velocity (E) and peak late diastolic velocity (A) and the results were com-pared to WMSI analysis. Patients were classified into two groups according to CA results; group (I) di-abetics with positive CA (n = 27) and group (II) di-abetics with negative CA (n = 19). Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in duration of diabetes, global WMSI at rest or the ? changes (stress-rest/rest) of WMSI (P > 0.05). Global S and global E were significantly lower in group I compared to group II at peak stress (11.3 ± 3.7 cm/sec vs. 14.5 ± 2.2 cm/sec, p < 0.01) and (11.3 ± 1.6 cm/sec vs. 13.1 ± 2.1 cm/sec, p < 0.01) respectively. The cutoff points for global S and global E to detect obstructive CAD in diabetics were 11.3 cm/s and 11.2 cm/s re-spectively with 75.7%, 73.4% sensitivity and 94.7%, 89.47% specificity respectively. An increment (? changes) less than 0.56 in S or 0.26 in E from rest to peak stress identified CAD with 78.8 %, 89.3% sensi-tivity and 94.7%, 90.7% specificity respectively. The accuracy of DTI parameters during peak stress was higher than WMSI analysis (sensitivity 74.1% vs. 59.3% and specificity 90% vs. 79%, P < 0.01 for each). In multivariate regression analysis, only ?S and ?E were independent predictors of obstructive CAD in diabetics (odd ratio: 36.16, 95% CI, 1.34- 532.01 and 63.77, 95% CI, 3.19-721.47) respectively. Conclusion: Quantitative analysis, using DTI during DSE, adds new dimension in diagnosis of myocardial ischemia. It is more sensitive, specific, accurate and reproducible compared with standard wall motion analysis for recognition of significant CAD in diabetic patients.