Lorente P, Azancot I, Masquet C, Babalis D, Duriez M, Slama R
Int J Cardiol. 1985 Apr;7(4):361-74. doi: 10.1016/0167-5273(85)90091-9.
We analyzed regional wall motion in 238 patients by using cineangiograms recorded in the 30 degrees right anterior oblique projection. The sample was divided into three groups: a normal group (n = 71), a group with isolated obstruction of the left anterior descending coronary artery and previous anterior myocardial infarction (n = 85), and a group with isolated obstruction of the right coronary artery and previous inferior myocardial infarction (n = 82). Both anterior and inferior groups also had motion abnormality within the corresponding anterior or inferior wall as judged by the qualitative analysis of cineangiograms. Four quantitative methods were compared: a long axis method and a center of mass method using internal reference systems, a method derived from the Stanford model and an area-based method using external reference systems. Normal regional values were determined from the normal group to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of the methods. The area-based method was the most sensitive in the anterior infarction group, whereas the center of mass method was the most sensitive in the inferior infarction group. We conclude that there is no evidence that any method, among those tested, is superior to others for every expected location of wall motion abnormality.
我们通过使用在右前斜30度投影下记录的电影血管造影来分析238例患者的局部室壁运动。样本分为三组：正常组（n = 71）、左前降支冠状动脉孤立性阻塞且既往有前壁心肌梗死组（n = 85）、右冠状动脉孤立性阻塞且既往有下壁心肌梗死组（n = 82）。通过电影血管造影的定性分析判断，前壁组和下壁组在相应的前壁或下壁内均存在运动异常。比较了四种定量方法：使用内部参考系统的长轴法和质心法、源自斯坦福模型的方法以及使用外部参考系统的基于面积的方法。从正常组确定正常局部值以评估这些方法的特异性和敏感性。基于面积的方法在前壁梗死组中最敏感，而质心法在下壁梗死组中最敏感。我们得出结论，没有证据表明在所测试的方法中，对于壁运动异常的每个预期位置，有任何一种方法优于其他方法。
