Moro E, Pignoni P, Nicolosi G L, Zardo F, Burelli C, Vergara G, Furlanello F, Zanuttini D
Servizio di Emodinamica, Ospedale di Pordenone.
G Ital Cardiol. 1987 Aug;17(8):661-6.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the value and limitations of Cross-sectional Echocardiography (CSE) in the diagnosis of Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD). Diagnosis was based on accepted clinical, electrocardiographic, electrophysiologic and angiographic criteria. CSE criteria for the diagnosis are segmental right ventricular wall motion abnormalities of unknown cause, usually associated with localized or diffuse dilatation of right ventricular (RV) chamber and with the presence of localized anomalies consisting of sacculation or bulging of RV wall. Comparison of CSE and RV angiographic findings was performed in 8 patients with ARVD (6 men and 2 women, aged 10 to 37 years, mean 28 years). CSE and angiography compared closely when diffuse RV enlargement and wall motion abnormalities were identified by both techniques. Bulging and sacculation of the RV wall at CSE predicted the presence of similar lesions at angiography, but agreement for specific location was poor and, in addition, CSE showed low sensitivity in their detection. The inherent different information provided by the two methods added to the subjectivity of the qualitative analysis probably accounts for the inconsistencies. Therefore in patients with diagnosed ARVD RV enlargement, otherwise unexplained, associated with wall motion abnormalities and localized anomalies at CSE strongly supports the diagnosis and avoids the need for angiography. By other hand, in patients with high clinical suspicion of ARVD a negative CSE study can not exclude the diagnosis and angiography should be indicated.
本研究的目的是评估横断面超声心动图(CSE)在诊断致心律失常性右室心肌病(ARVD)中的价值及局限性。诊断基于公认的临床、心电图、电生理及血管造影标准。CSE的诊断标准为不明原因的节段性右室壁运动异常,通常伴有右心室(RV)腔的局限性或弥漫性扩张,以及存在由RV壁膨出或囊状结构组成的局限性异常。对8例ARVD患者(6例男性,2例女性,年龄10至37岁,平均28岁)进行了CSE与RV血管造影结果的比较。当两种技术均发现弥漫性RV扩大及壁运动异常时,CSE与血管造影结果密切相关。CSE显示的RV壁膨出和囊状结构可预测血管造影中类似病变的存在,但对具体位置的一致性较差,此外,CSE对其检测的敏感性较低。两种方法提供的固有不同信息加上定性分析的主观性可能导致了不一致性。因此,对于已诊断为ARVD且存在RV扩大、原因不明、伴有壁运动异常及CSE显示局限性异常的患者,强烈支持诊断并可避免进行血管造影。另一方面,对于临床高度怀疑ARVD的患者,CSE检查结果阴性不能排除诊断,应进行血管造影检查。