Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Comparison of left ventricular strain obtain by cardiac magnetic resonance 3D feature tracking and 3D speckle tracking echocardiography, in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Session:
Posters (Sessão 4 - Écran 2) - Doenças do Miocárdio e Pericárdio 1
Speaker:
Isabel Cardoso
Congress:
CPC 2022
Topic:
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
Theme:
17. Myocardial Disease
Subtheme:
17.3 Myocardial Disease – Diagnostic Methods
Session Type:
Pósters Electrónicos
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Isabel Gonçalves Machado Cardoso; Pedro Brás; Sílvia Aguiar Rosa; Luísa Moura Branco; Ana Galrinho; Boban Thomas; Ricardo Pereira; Gonçalo Branco; António Fiarresga; Rui Cruz Ferreira
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Introduction</u>: The heterogeneous left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and interstitial fibrosis that characterizes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) leads to variability in regional and global systolic deformation parameters. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (FT) with steady-state free precession (SSFP) is considered analogous to echocardiographic speckle tracking (EST), although less widely used. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Aims</u>: To evaluate LV strain parameters in HCM patients (pts) by CMRFT and their relation with strain measures obtained by 3D speckle tracking echocardiography (3DSTE). </span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Methods:</u> Sixty-seven HCM pts prospectively seen, underwent both 3D CMRFT and 3DSTE studies, with measures of global longitudinal, circumferential and radial systolic strains (GLS, GCS, GRS). Pts with LV ejection fraction < 50% were excluded. Strain measures were compared using one-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA). A linear regression analysis was used to assess the correlation of variation of strain between the two modalities. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Results:</u> Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of the study participants and imaging findings. The mean GLS values assessed by 3DEST was significantly higher than by CMRFT (p=0.035). The average GRS was highest in 3DEST (p=0.005). There was a significant correlation between GRS obtained by 3DSTE and CMRFT (r2= 0.1). No significant difference in average GCS assessed by the two methods was found (p= 0.22), although a correlation between both couldn’t be demonstrated. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Conclusion</u>: Although no significant difference was found between GCS values obtained by 3DSTE and CMRFT, no correlation was found between the two. A significant correlation between GRS obtained by the two methods was found (r2= 0.1). Our study suggests that global strain values obtained by CMRFT and 3DEST cannot be used interchangeably in patients with HCM. However further larger studies are needed to clarify these findings. </span></span></p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site