Key result
Elective PCI is linked to a ~21% increase in mitral inflow Vp in stable CAD.
Why the study?
The early effects of successful elective PCI on systolic and diastolic function in stable CAD patients with LVEF > 40% were not well characterized.
Observational (n=21)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 51.8% vs 42.9%
p-value: p=0.008
Vp may detect subtle early diastolic shifts missed by other indices post-PCI; leaves open clinical relevance in stable CAD.
AIM: This study aimed at evaluating the early effects of successful elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on systolic and diastolic function. METHODS: We consecutively studied the systolic and diastolic function in 21 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40% before and 48 hours after successful elective PCI. RESULTS: Tei index and systolic indices (LVEF, regional wall motion abnormality score, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and peak systolic velocity of mitral and tricuspid annulus) did not change significantly. Among the diastolic indices, only velocity propagation (Vp) improved significantly (from 42.9 ± 10.8 to 51.8 ± 10.7, p-value = 0.008) following PCI. Diastolic velocities, E/A ratio, deceleration time (DT), early and late diastolic velocities of mitral annulus in TDI, pulmonary vein systolic (PVs) and diastolic flow velocity (PVd) did not show significant improvement. CONCLUSION: Propagation velocity of mitral inflow was the earliest index to recover following successful PCI in patients with stable CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sattarzadeh et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Stable coronary artery disease (n=21). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Pre-PCI baseline was evaluated on Velocity propagation (Vp) of mitral inflow (p=0.008). Propagation velocity of mitral inflow (Vp) improved significantly from 42.9 to 51.8 cm/sec 48 hours after successful elective PCI in patients with stable CAD.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: