切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (11) : 841 -847. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2019.11.009

所属专题: 文献

心血管超声影像学

二维斑点追踪成像技术评价完全性左束支传导阻滞患者的左心室功能及同步性
庞博1, 李光源1, 王永槐1, 孟平平1, 马春燕1,(), 杨军1   
  1. 1. 110001 沈阳,中国医科大学附属第一医院心血管超声科
  • 收稿日期:2018-05-12 出版日期:2019-11-01
  • 通信作者: 马春燕

Value of two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging in assessing left ventricular function and synchrony in patients with complete left bundle branch block

Bo Pang1, Guangyuan Li1, Yonghuai Wang1, Pingping Meng1, Chunyan Ma1,(), Jun Yang1   

  1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Ultrasound, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China
  • Received:2018-05-12 Published:2019-11-01
  • Corresponding author: Chunyan Ma
  • About author:
    Correspording author: Ma Chunyan, Email:
引用本文:

庞博, 李光源, 王永槐, 孟平平, 马春燕, 杨军. 二维斑点追踪成像技术评价完全性左束支传导阻滞患者的左心室功能及同步性[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2019, 16(11): 841-847.

Bo Pang, Guangyuan Li, Yonghuai Wang, Pingping Meng, Chunyan Ma, Jun Yang. Value of two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging in assessing left ventricular function and synchrony in patients with complete left bundle branch block[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2019, 16(11): 841-847.

目的

应用二维斑点追踪成像技术(2D-STI)探讨不同应变模式对完全性左束支传导阻滞(CLBBB)患者左心室收缩功能及同步性的影响。

方法

选取2016年4月至2018年4月在中国医科大学附属第一医院接受检查的CLBBB患者90例,根据二维纵向应变特征分为经典型(CPD)组及非CPD型(n-CPD)组,再进一步选取其中左心室射血分数(LVEF)>50%的患者,同上分为CPD组及n-CPD组;另选30名健康人作为健康对照组。对各组均行常规超声心动图及2D-STI检查,测量常规超声心动图参数:左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左心室舒张末期容积(LVEDV)及LVEF等;测量并计算左心室整体纵向峰值应变(GLS)、左心室流出道与右心室流出道射血前期时间差(IVMD)、基底段和中间段左心室侧壁与室间隔的应变达峰时间延迟(b-Ssl,m-Ssl)以及左心室18节段心肌纵向应变达峰时间的标准差(SDt)。

结果

与健康对照组比较,CPD组及n-CPD组LAD、RVBD、E/e′增高,E/A、EDT减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=5.12、3.67、7.29、5.69、5.89、3.15、2.05、5.89、5.22、3.83,P均<0.01);与n-CPD组比较,CPD组LAD、E/e′增高,E/A减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=8.12、3.24、3.94,P均<0.01)。与健康对照组比较,CPD组QRS、LVEDD、LVESD、LVEDV、LVESV、IVMD、b-Ssl、m-Ssl、SDt增高,LVEF、左心室间隔、侧壁及总体纵向应变减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=20.38、7.17、7.35、6.50、5.86、10.24、7.15、6.35、11.24、10.99、5.92、6.12,P均<0.001);与健康对照组比较,n-CPD组QRS、LVEDD、LVEDV、LVESV、IVMD、b-Ssl、m-Ssl、SDt增高,LVEF、左心室间隔、侧壁及总体纵向应变减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=16.54、1.99、2.12、2.07、5.87、2.53、2.10、5.06、2.68、3.66、2.06、3.62,P均<0.05);与n-CPD组比较,CPD组QRS、LVEDD、LVESD、LVEDV、LVESV、IVMD、b-Ssl、m-Ssl、SDt增高,LVEF、左心室间隔、侧壁及总体纵向应变减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=4.68、5.96、6.63、5.32、5.01、5.10、5.28、4.86、7.16、4.74、7.20、3.78、3.57,P均<0.001)。进一步选择LVEF>50%的患者进行比较,组间LVEF比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),与健康对照组比较,CPD组QRS、LVEDD、LVESD、LVEDV、LVESV、IVMD、b-Ssl、m-Ssl、SDt增高,左心室间隔、侧壁及总体纵向应变减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=19.44、4.01、5.21、5.61、4.73、9.19、5.27、3.16、3.25、8.02、4.15、5.42,P均<0.001);与健康对照组比较,n-CPD组QRS、LVEDD、LVEDV、LVESV、IVMD、b-Ssl、m-Ssl、SDt增高,左心室间隔及总体纵向应变减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=20.68、2.46、3.15、3.10、6.95、3.00、4.59、6.53、3.84、4.05,P均<0.05);与n-CPD组比较,CPD组QRS、LVEDD、LVESD、LVEDV、LVESV、IVMD、b-Ssl、SDt增高,左心室间隔、侧壁及总体纵向应变减低,差异均有统计学意义(t=2.73、2.13、3.88、3.06、2.19、3.94、3.00、3.25、4.38、2.90、2.30,P均<0.05)。

结论

常规超声心动图结合2D-STI技术可早期发现CLBBB患者左心室收缩功能及收缩同步性减低,且CPD型CLBBB较n-CPD型CLBBB进一步减低的现象,可提示临床需密切关注CPD型CLBBB患者,及时进行治疗干预。

Objective

To explore the effect of different strain patterns on left ventricular systolic function and synchrony in complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) patients using two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI).

Methods

Ninety patients with CLBBB were included from April 2016 to April 2018. The patients with CLBBB were divided into two groups based on the criteria of classic pattern of dyssynchrony (CPD) and non-classic pattern of dyssynchrony (n-CPD). Furthermore, patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)> 50% were further selected and divided into a CPD group and n-CPD group as above. Thirty healthy subjects were included as controls. Common echocardiography and 2D-STI were performed. Left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and volume (LVEDD and LVEDV) as well as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were measured. Global left ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), interventricular mechanical delay time (IVMD), basal-segment strain septal to lateral strain peak time delay (b-Ssl), mid-segment septal to lateral strain peak time delay (m-Ssl), and standard deviation of time to longitudinal strain peak for the left ventricular 18 segments (SDt) were measured and calculated.

Results

LAD, RVBD, E/e′, LVEDD, and LVEDV values in the CPD and n-CPD groups were significantly higher than those in the control group, and E/A and EDT in the CPD and n-CPD groups were significantly lower than those in the control group (t=5.12, 3.67, 7.29, 5.69, 5.89, 3.15, 2.05, 5.89, 5.22, and 3.83, P<0.01). Compared with the n-CPD group, LAD and E/e′ values were significantly higher and E/A was significantly lower in the CPD group (t=8.12, 3.24, and 3.94, respectively, P<0.001). Compared with the healthy control group, QRS, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV, LVESV, IVMD, b-Ssl, m-Ssl, and SDt values were significantly higher and LVEF, Sept-LS, Lat-LS, and GLS values were significantly lower (t=20.38, 7.17, 7.35, 6.50, 5.86, 10.24, 7.15, 6.35, 11.24, 10.99, 5.92, and 6.12, respectively; P<0.001) in the CPD group; QRS, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV, LVESV, IVMD, b-Ssl, m-Ssl, and SDt values were significantly higher and LVEF, Sept-LS, Lat-LS, and GLS values were significantly lower (t=16.54, 1.99, 2.12, 2.07, 5.87, 2.53, 2.10, 5.06, 2.68, 3.66, 2.06, and 3.62, respectively, P<0.05) in the n-CPD group. Compared with the n-CPD group, QRS, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV, LVESV, IVMD, b-Ssl, m-Ssl, and SDt values were significantly higher and LVEF, Sept-LS, Lat-LS, and GLS values were significantly lower (t=4.68, 5.96, 6.63, 5.32, 5.01, 5.10, 5.28, 4.86, 7.16, 4.74, 7.20, 3.78, and 3.57, respectively, P<0.001) in the CPD group. Further, patients with LVEF > 50% were selected for comparisons, and there was no significant difference in LVEF between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the healthy control group, QRS, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV, LVESV, IVMD, b-Ssl, m-Ssl, and SDt values were significantly higher and Sept-LS, Lat-LS, and GLS values were significantly lower (t=19.44, 4.01, 5.21, 5.61, 4.73, 9.19, 5.27, 3.16, 3.25, 8.02, 4.15, and 5.42, respectively, P<0.001) in the CPD group; QRS, LVEDD, LVEDV, LVESV, IVMD, b-Ssl, m-Ssl, and SDt values were significantly higher and Sept-LS and GLS values were significantly lower (t=20.68, 2.46, 3.15, 3.10, 6.95, 3.00, 4.59, 6.53, 3.84, and 4.05, respectively, P<0.05) in the n-CPD group. Compared with the n-CPD group, QRS, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV, LVESV, IVMD, b-Ssl, and SDt values in CPD group were significantly higher and Sept-LS, Lat- LS, and GLS values were significantly lower (t=2.73, 2.13, 3.88, 3.06, 2.19, 3.94, 3.00, 3.25, 4.38, 2.90, and 2.30, respectively, P<0.05l) in the CPD group.

Conclusion

Conventional echocardiography combined with 2D-STI technology can early detect reduced systolic function and systolic synchronicity of the left ventricle in CLBBB patients, as well as the phenomenon that the systolic function and systolic synchronicity are further decreased in typical CLBBB compared with non-typical CLBBB, which can prompt clinical attention to typical CLBBB patients and timely treatment intervention.

图1 经典型完全性左束支传导阻滞患者应变曲线。图a为模式图:间隔应变曲线(蓝色)及侧壁应变曲线(黄色),心电图(红色),射血期前70%分割线(绿色);图b为二维纵向应变曲线图
表1 组间一般情况及常规超声参数比较(±s
表2 组间左心室收缩功能及同步性参数比较(±s
表3 左心室射血分数正常的完全性左束支传导阻滞患者3组间左心室收缩功能及同步性参数比较(±s
1
Breithardt G, Breithardt OA. Left bundle branch block, an old-new entity [J]. J Cardiovasc Transl Res, 2012, 5(2): 107-116.
2
Forsha D, Slorach C, Chen CK, et al. Classic-pattern dyssynchrony and electrical activation delays in pediatric dilated cardiomyopathy [J]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2014, 27(9): 956-964.
3
Seo Y, Ishizu T, Sakamaki F, et al. Left bundle branch block and echocardiography in the era of CRT [J]. J Echocardiogr, 2015, 13(1): 6-14.
4
Schneider JF, Thomas HE Jr, Sorlie P, et al. Comparative features of newly acquired left and right bundle branch block in the general population: the Framingham study [J]. Am J Cardiol, 1981, 47(4): 931-940.
5
Risum N, Tayal B, Hansen TF, et al. Identification of Typical Left Bundle Branch Block Contraction by Strain Echocardiography Is Additive to Electrocardiography in Prediction of Long-Term Outcome After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2015, 66(6): 631-641.
6
Wang CL, Wu CT, Yeh YH, et al. Left bundle-branch block contraction patterns identified from radial-strain analysis predicts outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy [J]. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2017, 33(6): 869-877.
7
Tanaka H, Nesser HJ, Buck T, et al. Dyssynchrony by speckle-tracking echocardiography and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: results of the Speckle Tracking and Resynchronization (STAR) study [J]. Eur Heart J, 2010, 31(4): 1690-1700.
8
中华医学会超声医学分会超声心动图学组. 中国成年人超声心动图检查测量指南 [J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2016, 25(8): 645-665.
9
Yılmaz S, Kılıc H, Ağac MT, et al. Left ventricular twist was decreased in isolated left bundle branch block with preserved ejection fraction [J]. Anatol J Cardiol, 2017, 17(6): 475-480.
10
蔡思宇,吴祥. 左束支传导阻滞与心脏再同步化治疗 [J]. 心电与循环, 2015, 34(4): 291-296.
11
Auricchio A, Fantoni C, Regoli F, et al. Characterization of left ventricular activation in patients with heart failure and left bundle-branch block [J]. Circulation, 2004, 109(9): 1133-1139.
12
Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging [J]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2015, 28(8): 1-39 e14.
13
Yang N, Liang ZG, Wang ZJ, et al. Combined myocardial deformation to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy response in nonischemic cardiomyopathy [J]. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2017, 40(9): 986-994.
14
Bank AJ, Gage RM, Marek JJ, et al. Mechanical dyssynchrony is additive to ECG criteria and independently associated with reverse remodelling and clinical response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with advanced heart failure [J]. Open Heart, 2015, 2(1): e000246.
15
Carlomagno G, Lengo R, Sordelli C, et al. Recoordination of opposing walls drives the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a longitudinal study using a strain discoordination index [J]. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown), 2015, 16(11): 736-742.
16
Marechaux, S, Guiot A, Castel AL, et al. Relationship between two-dimensional speckle-tracking septal strain and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and left bundle branch block: a prospective pilot study [J]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2014, 27(5): 501-511.
[1] 张婉微, 秦芸芸, 蔡绮哲, 林明明, 田润雨, 金姗, 吕秀章. 心肌收缩早期延长对非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征患者冠状动脉严重狭窄的预测价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(10): 1016-1022.
[2] 任书堂, 刘晓程, 张亚东, 孙佳英, 陈萍, 周建华, 龙进, 黄云洲. 左心室辅助装置支持下单纯收缩期主动脉瓣反流的超声心动图特征[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(10): 1023-1028.
[3] 孙佳英, 黄云洲, 任书堂, 王翠华, 陈新华, 于艾嘉, 陈元禄. 无创心肌做功对左束支传导阻滞患者左心室整体及节段心肌收缩功能的评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 836-843.
[4] 钟露, 曹省, 宋宏宁, 陈金玲, 周青. 超声心动图定量评估二尖瓣反流程度的质量控制[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(07): 705-711.
[5] 金姗, 丁雪晏, 蔡绮哲, 李一丹, 赵智玲, 郭兮恒, 吕秀章. 左心室压力-应变环对阻塞型睡眠呼吸暂停综合征患者心肌功能的评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(06): 575-580.
[6] 张贺彬, 高枫, 郑哲岚, 王晓嫚, 陈丽, 杨寸芯, 胡佩佩. 二维斑点追踪超声心动图对业余马拉松运动员右心室收缩功能的评估[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(10): 1091-1097.
[7] 刘婷婷, 丁明岩, 冀威, 郭丽娟, 李颖, 赵含章, 朱芳. 非冠状动脉梗阻性缺血性心脏病女性患者心率储备与微循环功能障碍的相关性研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(10): 1077-1082.
[8] 钟春燕, 董虹美, 张晓航, 冉素真. 胎儿永存左上腔静脉合并肺/主动脉和右/左心室比例异常的产前超声诊断及预后分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(09): 933-940.
[9] 张红梅, 李春梅, 王胰, 张清凤, 丁戈琦, 邓燕, 林薿, 李文华, 尹立雪. 经胸右心声学造影不同右心房增压方式评估卵圆孔未闭隐匿性右向左分流的价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(06): 508-513.
[10] 杨喆, 尹立雪, 王斯佳, 罗素秋, 赵欣, 周乔, 苏江, 邬锐. 超声血流向量成像对痛风患者左心室能量损耗的初步评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(06): 527-534.
[11] 陈丽炯, 赵博文, 陈冉, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 楼海亚, 王蓓. 单纯性卵圆孔瓣开放过度与开放受限胎儿的超声心动图评估[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(04): 350-356.
[12] 陈樱, 陈艳莉. 高龄孕妇心率变异性原因及围产结局分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 295-301.
[13] 张俊飞, 宋新梅, 谢文杰, 杨茜, 牛帅. 腹腔镜全胃切除术不同消化道重建方法对患者术后胆囊功能及胆结石发生的对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 192-195.
[14] 江岚, 梁伟翔, 苏春宏, 苏志源, 刘丹丹, 戴丽, 陈敦金. 超声心动图评估妊娠合并严重心脏病患者剖宫产围术期心容量及功能的变化特征[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2023, 12(01): 28-35.
[15] 李燕伟, 黄大军, 伍洲, 张嬿, 康彧, 孔令秋. 曲折的右心声学造影一例[J]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 179-181.
阅读次数
全文


摘要