Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínic, Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Centro de Investigación Biomèdica en Red Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Institució Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona, Carrer de Roc Boronat 138, 08018, Barcelona, Spain.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Oct;35(10):1853-1860. doi: 10.1007/s10554-019-01633-6. Epub 2019 May 25.
Right ventricular longitudinal strain (RVLS) by 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) is a useful parameter for assessing systolic function. However, the exact method to perform it is not well defined as some authors evaluate only free wall (FW) segments while others include all six RV segments. To compare the assessment of RVLS at rest and during exercise by these two approaches. Echocardiography was performed on 80 healthy subjects at rest and during exercise. The analysis consisted of standard and 2D-STE assessment of RV global and segmental strain tracing only RVFW and also tracing all six RV segments. At rest, RVLS could be assessed in 78 (feasibility 97.5%) subjects by both methods. However, during exercise, RVLS by RVFW method was feasible in 67 (83.8%) as compared to 74 (92.5%) by RV6S approach. Both at rest and during exercise, RVLS values by the two methods showed excellent correlation (r = > 0.90). However, RVLS values assessed by RV6S were lower (absolute values) than those by RVFW approach (RV6S vs. RVFW; rest: - 27.0 ± 3.9 vs. - 9.5 ± 3.9, p < 0.001 and exercise: - 30.7 ± 5.2 vs. - 33.3 ± 5.1, p < 0.001). Furthermore, basal strain was higher and apical strain lower (absolute values) by RV6S approach. At rest, reproducibility for RVLS was excellent and similar for the two methods. However, during exercise, reproducibility for RVFW method was poorer, especially at the apex. The two currently described methods for RVLS assessment by 2D-STE demonstrated excellent agreement. However, the RV6S approach seemed to be more feasible and reproducible, particularly during exercise. Moreover, global and segmental strain values are different with both methods and should not be interchanged.
二维斑点追踪超声心动图（2D-STE）测量的右心室纵向应变（RVLS）是评估收缩功能的有用参数。然而，其具体测量方法尚未明确，因为有些作者仅评估游离壁（FW）节段，而其他作者则包括所有六个 RV 节段。本研究旨在比较这两种方法评估静息和运动状态下 RVLS 的差异。对 80 名健康受试者进行静息和运动状态下的超声心动图检查。分析包括标准和 2D-STE 评估 RV 整体和节段应变轨迹，仅评估 RVFW 或评估所有六个 RV 节段。在静息状态下，两种方法均可在 78 例（可行性 97.5%）受试者中评估 RVLS。然而，在运动状态下，仅 RVFW 法 RVLS 可行性为 67 例（83.8%），而 RV6S 法为 74 例（92.5%）。两种方法在静息和运动状态下的 RVLS 值均具有极好的相关性（r > 0.90）。然而，RV6S 法评估的 RVLS 值（绝对值）低于 RVFW 法（RV6S 与 RVFW；静息：-27.0 ± 3.9 比-9.5 ± 3.9，p < 0.001，运动：-30.7 ± 5.2 比-33.3 ± 5.1，p < 0.001）。此外，RV6S 法的基底应变较高，心尖应变较低（绝对值）。在静息状态下，两种方法的 RVLS 重复性均极好且相似。然而，在运动状态下，RVFW 法的重复性较差，尤其是心尖部。目前描述的两种通过 2D-STE 评估 RVLS 的方法具有极好的一致性。然而，RV6S 法似乎更可行和更具有可重复性，尤其是在运动状态下。此外，两种方法的 RV 整体和节段应变值不同，不应互换使用。
Zotero 插件