Quader Nishath, Katta Prasanth, Najib Mohammad Q, Chaliki Hari P
Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
J Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2013 Dec;21(4):165-70. doi: 10.4250/jcu.2013.21.4.165. Epub 2013 Dec 27.
To determine sensitivity and specificity of E wave velocity in patients with severe chronic organic mitral regurgitation (MR) and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and to evaluate prevalence of A wave dominance in patients with severe MR.
We compared 35 patients with quantified severe, chronic, quantified, organic MR due to flail/prolapsed leaflets who had reparative surgery with 35 age-matched control subjects.
EF < 60%, atrial fibrillation, and more than mild aortic regurgitation.
Mean [standard deviation (SD)] age [70 (8) years vs. 69 (8) years; p = 0.94] and mean (SD) EF [66% (6%) vs. 65% (4%); p = 0.43] were not different between the two groups. Mean (SD) E wave velocity was greater in case patients than control subjects [1.2 (0.3) m/sec vs. 0.7 (0.15) m/sec; p < 0.001]. However, E wave velocity of 1.2 m/sec had a sensitivity of only 57% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41-7 and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 90-100%) in identifying severe MR. E wave velocity of 0.9 m/sec had a more optimal combined sensitivity (89%; 95% CI, 74-95%) and specificity (86%; 95% CI, 71-94%). A wave dominance was seen in 18% of case patients and 66% of control subjects (p < 0.001).
E wave velocity of 1.2 m/sec is specific not sensitive for severe organic MR; E wave velocity of 0.9 m/sec has better sensitivity and specificity. A wave dominance pattern alone cannot exclude patients with severe organic MR. Our findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive echocardiographic exam rather than relying on a few Doppler parameters in diagnosing MR.
确定严重慢性器质性二尖瓣反流(MR)且左心室射血分数(EF)正常患者中E波速度的敏感性和特异性,并评估严重MR患者中A波优势的发生率。
我们将35例因瓣叶连枷/脱垂接受修复手术的定量严重、慢性、定量器质性MR患者与35例年龄匹配的对照者进行比较。
EF<60%、心房颤动以及中重度以上主动脉反流。
两组的平均[标准差(SD)]年龄[70(8)岁对69(8)岁;p=0.94]和平均(SD)EF[66%(6%)对65%(4%);p=0.43]无差异。病例组患者的平均(SD)E波速度高于对照组[1.2(0.3)m/秒对0.7(0.15)m/秒;p<0.001]。然而,1.2 m/秒的E波速度在识别严重MR时敏感性仅为57%[95%置信区间(CI),41-7],特异性为100%(95%CI,90-100%)。0.9 m/秒的E波速度具有更优的综合敏感性(89%;95%CI,74-95%)和特异性(86%;95%CI,71-94%)。18%的病例组患者和66%的对照组患者出现A波优势(p<0.001)。
1.2 m/秒的E波速度对严重器质性MR具有特异性而非敏感性;0.9 m/秒的E波速度具有更好的敏感性和特异性。单纯的A波优势模式不能排除严重器质性MR患者。我们的研究结果强调了在诊断MR时进行全面超声心动图检查而非仅依赖少数多普勒参数的重要性。