Belvís Robert, Leta Ruben Gabriel, Martí-Fàbregas Joan, Cocho Dolores, Carreras Francesc, Pons-Lladó Guillem, Martí-Vilalta Josep Lluis
Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
J Neuroimaging. 2006 Apr;16(2):133-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2006.00021.x.
Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and transcranial Doppler (TCD) are the methods of choice to study patent foramen ovale (PFO), but there are discrepancies between the 2 concerning PFO detection. No study has analyzed right-to-left shunt (RLS) quantification concordance. The 2 methods are carried out in different hemodynamic states, and the Valsalva maneuver (VM) required in each also differs. The authors compared PFO detection and concordance of RLS quantification classifications performing the 2 studies simultaneously.
The authors prospectively included consecutive stroke patients undergoing TEE and applied the TCD protocol of the Consensus Conference. Echocardiographic PFO was diagnosed when at least 3 microbubbles (MBs) were detected in the left atrium within 3 heartbeats after opacification of the right atrium. RLS quantification was (1) TCD: minimum (1-10 MBs), moderate (11-25 MBs), and massive (>25 MBs) and (2) TEE: small (3-10 MBs), moderate (11-30 MBs), and large (>30 MBs).
contingency tables (chi(2) and K test). Results. The authors studied 110 patients whose mean age was 56.7 +/- 12.1 years, and 60.9% were men. PFO was detected at the first VM in 30% of patients with TCD and in 31.8% with TEE. At the second VM, both methods detected the same patients (32.7%). RLS was minimum (14), moderate (5), and massive (17) in TCD and small (13), moderate (3), and large (20) in TEE. There was an almost perfect concordance in RLS quantification (K = 0.928, P = .001), with only 4 discrepancies.
Simultaneous study with TCD and TEE showed an almost perfect concordance in PFO detection and RLS quantification.
经食管超声心动图(TEE)和经颅多普勒(TCD)是研究卵圆孔未闭(PFO)的首选方法,但在PFO检测方面两者存在差异。尚无研究分析右向左分流(RLS)定量的一致性。这两种方法是在不同的血流动力学状态下进行的,且每种方法所需的Valsalva动作(VM)也不同。作者同时进行这两项检查,比较了PFO检测及RLS定量分类的一致性。
作者前瞻性纳入了连续接受TEE检查的卒中患者,并应用了共识会议的TCD方案。当右心房显影后3个心动周期内在左心房检测到至少3个微泡(MBs)时,诊断为超声心动图PFO。RLS定量为:(1)TCD:少量(1 - 10个MBs)、中度(11 - 25个MBs)和大量(>25个MBs);(2)TEE:小量(3 - 10个MBs)、中度(11 - 30个MBs)和大量(>30个MBs)。
列联表(卡方检验和K检验)。结果:作者研究了110例患者,平均年龄为56.7±12.1岁,男性占60.9%。在首次VM时,TCD检测到PFO的患者为30%,TEE为31.8%。在第二次VM时,两种方法检测到相同患者(32.7%)。TCD的RLS为少量(14例)、中度(5例)和大量(17例),TEE的RLS为小量(13例)、中度(3例)和大量(20例)。RLS定量几乎完全一致(K = 0.928,P = 0.001),仅4例存在差异。
TCD和TEE同时检查显示在PFO检测和RLS定量方面几乎完全一致。