Loading…
Assessment of longitudinal left ventricular systolic function by different echocardiographic modalities in patients with newly diagnosed mild-to-moderate hypertension/Yeni tani konulmus hafif ve orta derecede hipertansiyonu olan hastalarda sol ventrikül longitüdinal fonksiyonunun degisik ekokardiyografik modaliteler ile degerlendirilmesi
Standard echocardiographic methods reflect chamber dynamics and do not provide a direct measure of myocardial fiber shortening. Therefore we evaluated longitudinal left ventricular myocardial function by tissue Doppler echocardiography; strain (S), strain rate (SR), tissue Doppler velocity (TDV) in...
Saved in:
Published in: | Anatolian journal of cardiology 2010-06, Vol.10 (3), p.247 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Standard echocardiographic methods reflect chamber dynamics and do not provide a direct measure of myocardial fiber shortening. Therefore we evaluated longitudinal left ventricular myocardial function by tissue Doppler echocardiography; strain (S), strain rate (SR), tissue Doppler velocity (TDV) in newly diagnosed mild to moderate hypertensive patients. Our cross-sectional and observational study population consisted of 57 patients and 48 normotensive control subjects. Patients with obesity, diabetes mellitus, regional wall motion abnormality, secondary hypertension and a history or clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease, arrhythmias or conduction abnormalities were excluded from the study. Ejection fraction, endocardial fractional shortening (eFS), meridional end-systolic stress (mESS), stress-adjusted eFS (observed /predicted eFS) were measured by M-mode echocardiography. Relationship between the left ventricular mass index and mESS was assessed by Pearson's linear regression model. Hypertensive patients had significantly decreased longitudinal myocardial function compared to control subjects determined by septal (-1.25+/-0.30 vs. -1.02+/-0.33, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2149-2263 2149-2271 |