Echocardiographic Assessment of the Left Ventricular Physical Parameters: A Comparison Study in Patients With Significant and Non-Significant Coronary Artery Disease [post]

Zeinab Alsadat Ahmadi, Manijhe Mokhtari-Dizaji, Anita Sadeghpour, Hamideh Khesali, Ata Firouzi
2020 unpublished
BackgroundIn this study, physical parameters of the strain of left ventricle (LV), wall stress with a thick-walled ellipsoidal model, and elastic modulus of LV were extracted for distinguishing patients who were stent candidates.Materials and MethodsEighty-eight patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent echocardiography and angiography. Based on angiography results, the patients were divided into two groups (64 patients candidate for PCI (percutaneous coronary
more » ... ronary intervention) and 24 cases in the control group). Long-axis and short-axis echocardiographic views were acquired. Radial, longitudinal, and circumferential stress were estimated by the thick-walled ellipsoidal model. Circumferential strain (CS) and longitudinal strain (Ls) were obtained for 18 segments in the endocardium layer of LV, and then GLS (global longitudinal strain) and GCS (global circumferential strain) were calculated.ResultAnterior and inferoseptal circumferential wall stresses in end-systole (ES) were statistically significant (P<0.05), but radial and longitudinal stress were not significant (P>0.05). Peak systolic GCS and GLS were lower in the PCI group (-18.13±3.03 and -16.57±2.88%) compared to the control group (-21.97±3.97 and 19.14±2.17%), respectively (p<0.05). The receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis revealed that GLS and GCS had the highest area under the ROC curve with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 63% for GLS and sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 59% for GCS.ConclusionStress and strain parameters are suggested as non-invasive and quantitative tools for measuring left ventricular function before angiography. Regional elastic modulus was a powerful predictor that can be distinguishing significant CAD patients.
doi:10.21203/ fatcat:g3bgm7qds5falh2sgeayhzfloq