RESUMEN
Preeclampsia is a multisystem disease complicating 5-10% of pregnancies and remains in the top three causes of maternal morbidity and mortality globally. During pregnancy mean arterial pressure and vascular resistance decrease, while blood volume and basal metabolic rate increase resulting in increased cardiac output In hypertensive disorders of pregnancy there is currently no consensus on the systolic and diastolic parameters of cardiac function and the literature is conflicting regarding whether there is increased, decreased or any change in cardiac output. Women with a history of preeclampsia/eclampsia have approximately double the risk of early cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral arterial disease, and cardiovascular mortality. This study was undertaken to evaluate cardiovascular hemodynamic alterations in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in comparison with appropriately age, parity and gestational age matched control normotensive pregnancies. In women with preeclampsia cardiac work index and left ventricular mass index are increased as a result of increased workload on heart to maintain cardiac output against increased after load. Systolic function is well preserved. Diastolic function is reduced and those with global diastolic function are at increased risk of developing pulmonary edema. Advanced techniques like speckle tracking echocardiography can better identify those with compromised cardiovascular function.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To determine sensitivity and specificity of E wave velocity in patients with severe chronic organic mitral regurgitation (MR) and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and to evaluate prevalence of A wave dominance in patients with severe MR. METHODS: We compared 35 patients with quantified severe, chronic, quantified, organic MR due to flail/prolapsed leaflets who had reparative surgery with 35 age-matched control subjects. Exclusion criteria: EF < 60%, atrial fibrillation, and more than mild aortic regurgitation. RESULTS: Mean [standard deviation (SD)] age [70 (8) years vs. 69 (8) years; p = 0.94] and mean (SD) EF [66% (6%) vs. 65% (4%); p = 0.43] were not different between the two groups. Mean (SD) E wave velocity was greater in case patients than control subjects [1.2 (0.3) m/sec vs. 0.7 (0.15) m/sec; p < 0.001]. However, E wave velocity of 1.2 m/sec had a sensitivity of only 57% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41-7 and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 90-100%) in identifying severe MR. E wave velocity of 0.9 m/sec had a more optimal combined sensitivity (89%; 95% CI, 74-95%) and specificity (86%; 95% CI, 71-94%). A wave dominance was seen in 18% of case patients and 66% of control subjects (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: E wave velocity of 1.2 m/sec is specific not sensitive for severe organic MR; E wave velocity of 0.9 m/sec has better sensitivity and specificity. A wave dominance pattern alone cannot exclude patients with severe organic MR. Our findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive echocardiographic exam rather than relying on a few Doppler parameters in diagnosing MR.