Contrast echocardiography improves the accuracy and reproducibility of left ventricular remodeling measurements: a prospective, randomly assigned, blinded study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the impact of contrast injection and harmonic imaging, on the measure by echocardiography of left ventricular (LV) remodeling. BACKGROUND: Left ventricular remodeling is a precursor of LV dysfunction, but the impact of contrast injection and harmonic imaging on the accuracy or reproducibility of echocardiography is unclear. METHODS: We prospectively collected LV images by using simultaneous methods. Then, LV volumes were measured off-line, in blinded manner and in random order. The accuracy of echocardiography was determined in comparison to electron beam computed tomography (EBCT) in 26 patients. The reproducibility of echocardiography was assessed by three blinded observers with different training levels in 32 patients. RESULTS: End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF), as measured by EBCT (195 +/- 55, 58 +/- 24 and 137 +/- 35 ml and 71 +/- 5%, respectively) and echocardiography with harmonic imaging and contrast injection (194 +/- 51, 55 +/- 20 and 140 +/- 35 ml and 72 +/- 4%, respectively), showed no differences (all p > 0.15) and excellent correlations (all r > 0.87). In contrast, echocardiography using harmonic imaging without contrast injection underestimated the EBCT results (all p < 0.01). Reproducibility was superior with rather than without contrast injection for intraobserver and interobserver variabilities (all p < 0.001). Values measured by different observers were different without contrast injection, but were similar with contrast injection (all p > 0.18). Consequently, intrinsic patient differences represented a larger and almost exclusive proportion of global variability with contrast injection for EDV (94 vs. 79%), ESV (93 vs. 82%), SV (87 vs. 53%) and EF (84 vs. 41%), as compared with harmonic imaging without contrast injection (all p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: For assessment of LV remodeling, echocardiography with harmonic imaging and contrast injection improved the accuracy and reproducibility, as compared with imaging without contrast injection. With contrast injection, variability was almost exclusively due to intrinsic patient differences. Therefore, when evaluation of LV remodeling is deemed important, assessment after contrast injection should be the preferred echocardiographic approach.

Contrast dobutamine stress echocardiography: clinical practice assessment in 300 consecutive patients.

In this study we compared non-contrast imaging with contrast imaging of the left ventricle during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE). Wall segment visualization, image quality, and confidence of interpretation were determined with and without the use of intravenous Optison, a second-generation echocardiographic contrast agent, in 300 consecutive patients undergoing rest and peak DSE. At rest and at peak stress, the percentage of wall segments visualized, image quality, and confidence of interpretation were better with contrast compared with non-contrast imaging. No significant decrease was seen in wall segment visualization, image quality, or confidence of interpretation from rest to peak stress in images obtained with contrast, unlike the images obtained without contrast from rest to peak stress. The use of the intravenous echocardiographic contrast agent Optison during DSE significantly improved wall segment visualization and image quality at rest and at peak stress, resulting in improved confidence of interpretation.

A rapid stress-testing protocol for the detection of coronary artery disease: comparison of two-stage transesophageal atrial pacing stress echocardiography with dobutamine stress echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: We compared a new two-stage transesophageal atrial pacing stress echocardiography (TAPSE) protocol with a standard dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) protocol. BACKGROUND: Transesophageal atrial pacing stress echocardiography has been proposed as an efficient alternative to DSE. METHODS: Two-stage TAPSE (85% and 100% of age-predicted maximum heart rate) and DSE (5 to 40 microg/kg/min at 3-min stages with or without atropine) were both performed, in random sequence, in each patient of a study group of 36 patients. Regional wall-motion analysis, patient acceptance (1 = low, 5 = high), hemodynamics and duration for performing and interpreting tests were compared. RESULTS: Transesophageal atrial pacing stress echocardiography was successful in 35 of the 36 patients (feasibility 97%). More TAPSE than DSE studies were called "ischemic" (37% vs. 14%; p = 0.005). Peak heart rate was higher with TAPSE (144 +/- 18 vs. 129 +/- 15 beats/min, p = 0.0001). Peak cardiac index (4.6 +/- 2.1 vs. 5.1 +/- 1.9 liters/min/m2, p = 0.14), patient acceptance score (4.2 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.3, p = 0.17) and study duration (14.2 +/- 9.3 vs. 13.3 +/- 3.3 min, p = 0.59) were similar. Recovery time (7.1 +/- 7.6 vs. 16.2 +/- 15.9 min, p = 0.0003) and interpretation time (9.1 +/- 2.8 vs. 13.5 +/- 4.4 min, p = 0.0001) were shorter for TAPSE than for DSE. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage TAPSE permits rapid evaluation of cardiac patients. Peak cardiac index and patient acceptance scores were similar for TAPSE and DSE. Ischemia was detected more often with TAPSE; this result was attributed to the higher peak heart rate obtained with this protocol.