中国医学影像技术
中國醫學影像技術
중국의학영상기술
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING TECHNOLOGY
2010年
4期
659-661
,共3页
房芳%李治安%杨娅%裴金凤%栾姝蓉
房芳%李治安%楊婭%裴金鳳%欒姝蓉
방방%리치안%양아%배금봉%란주용
应变%斑点追踪显像%组织多普勒显像%封堵器
應變%斑點追蹤顯像%組織多普勒顯像%封堵器
응변%반점추종현상%조직다보륵현상%봉도기
Strain%Speckle-tracking imaging%Tissue Doppler imaging%Occluder
目的 通过研究封堵器介入治疗房间隔缺损术后患者心房应变,对比斑点追踪显像及组织多普勒应变显像两种方法对心房功能评价的价值.方法 对封堵器介入治疗房间隔缺损成功的40例患者于术后1周内进行超声心动图检查,应用组织多普勒应变显像及斑点追踪显像技术分别测量左心房封堵器处及左心房侧壁应变,对比两种方法评价心房功能的可靠性.结果 两种测量方法的可重复性及后处理分析时间差异无统计学意义.两种方法均显示左心房侧壁应变显著高于封堵器局部应变(组织多普勒:47.31%±27.25% vs 30.06%±14.29%, P<0.01;斑点追踪:43.49%±25.55% vs 12.74%±9.16%, P<0.001).两种方法评价侧壁应变无差异,但斑点追踪封堵器局部应变低于组织多普勒显像,且有5例患者封堵器局部应变为0,而组织多普勒法未见封堵器局部应变为0(χ~2=5.33, P=0.027).结论 斑点追踪显像评价心房形变能力优于组织多普勒应变显像.
目的 通過研究封堵器介入治療房間隔缺損術後患者心房應變,對比斑點追蹤顯像及組織多普勒應變顯像兩種方法對心房功能評價的價值.方法 對封堵器介入治療房間隔缺損成功的40例患者于術後1週內進行超聲心動圖檢查,應用組織多普勒應變顯像及斑點追蹤顯像技術分彆測量左心房封堵器處及左心房側壁應變,對比兩種方法評價心房功能的可靠性.結果 兩種測量方法的可重複性及後處理分析時間差異無統計學意義.兩種方法均顯示左心房側壁應變顯著高于封堵器跼部應變(組織多普勒:47.31%±27.25% vs 30.06%±14.29%, P<0.01;斑點追蹤:43.49%±25.55% vs 12.74%±9.16%, P<0.001).兩種方法評價側壁應變無差異,但斑點追蹤封堵器跼部應變低于組織多普勒顯像,且有5例患者封堵器跼部應變為0,而組織多普勒法未見封堵器跼部應變為0(χ~2=5.33, P=0.027).結論 斑點追蹤顯像評價心房形變能力優于組織多普勒應變顯像.
목적 통과연구봉도기개입치료방간격결손술후환자심방응변,대비반점추종현상급조직다보륵응변현상량충방법대심방공능평개적개치.방법 대봉도기개입치료방간격결손성공적40례환자우술후1주내진행초성심동도검사,응용조직다보륵응변현상급반점추종현상기술분별측량좌심방봉도기처급좌심방측벽응변,대비량충방법평개심방공능적가고성.결과 량충측량방법적가중복성급후처리분석시간차이무통계학의의.량충방법균현시좌심방측벽응변현저고우봉도기국부응변(조직다보륵:47.31%±27.25% vs 30.06%±14.29%, P<0.01;반점추종:43.49%±25.55% vs 12.74%±9.16%, P<0.001).량충방법평개측벽응변무차이,단반점추종봉도기국부응변저우조직다보륵현상,차유5례환자봉도기국부응변위0,이조직다보륵법미견봉도기국부응변위0(χ~2=5.33, P=0.027).결론 반점추종현상평개심방형변능력우우조직다보륵응변현상.
Objective To compare the value of speckle-tracking imaging and tissue Doppler strain imaging in evaluating left atrial (LA) mechanical contraction. Methods Forty patients after successful percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) closure were enrolled in this study. Two-dimensional strain imaging (2D strain echocardiography, 2DSE) and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) were performed one weak after ASD closure. Off-line analysis was done for atrial longitudinal peak systolic strain on the interatrial septum, in correspondence of the device, and on the lateral wall of the left atrium from apical 4 chamber view with 2DSE and color-coded strain imaging, respectively. Results There was no statistical difference of the inter- and intra-observer viability as well as time consumption on the off-line analysis between 2DSE and TDI. LA lateral wall strain was much higher than that of LA septum assessed by both color-coded strain imaging (47.31%±27.25% vs 30.06%±14.29%, P<0.01) and 2DSE (43.49%±25.55% vs 12.74%±9.16%, P<0.001). LA lateral wall strain was similar with either method (P=NS). However, at the site of ASD occluder, a non-contractile element, deformation was significantly higher in color-coded strain imaging than 2DSE (P<0.001). Five patients (12.50%) presented absence of deformation on ASD occluder with 2DSE, whereas there was no patient with TDI assessment (χ~2=5.33, P=0.027). Conclusion Speckle-tracking imaging is superior to tissue Doppler strain imaging in assessing left atrium mechanical function.