• Users Online: 202
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-6

Assessment of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony in left bundle branch block patients with and without heart failure by tissue doppler imaging


1 Department of Cardiology, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa, India
2 Department of Cardiology, Poona Hospital and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Research, Poona Hospital and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication15-Mar-2019

Correspondence Address:
Deepak Phalgune
18/27, Bharat Kunj -1, Erandawane, Pune - 411 038, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jiae.jiae_21_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Introduction: Large number of patients with heart failure (HF) have left bundle branch block (LBBB). Most precise method for identification of intraventricular dyssynchrony is tissue Doppler imaging (TDI). Purpose of this research was to compare left ventricular (LV) mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB patients with and without HF and to compare various methods of LV systolic dyssynchrony assessment by TDI. Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixteen patients with a diagnosis of LBBB were included in the study. All patients underwent conventional two-dimensional echocardiography for global LV function assessment. LV systolic dyssynchrony was measured by opposing wall delay, maximum delay, and Yu index. LBBB patients were grouped into four classes according to their LV function and the presence or absence of HF, normal LV function without HF (Group A), normal LV function with HF (Group B), LV dysfunction with HF (Group C), and LV dysfunction without HF (Group D). Results: LV systolic dyssynchrony was significantly higher (P <0.001) in Group C and D as compared to Group A and B. LV systolic dyssynchrony was significant higher in Group C and D as compared to Group A and B by using opposing wall delay (P <0.001), Yu index (P <0.001), and maximum delay (P <0.001) imaging criteria. Mean Yu index (P <0.001) and mean maximum delay (P <0.001) were significantly higher in Group C and D as compared to Group A and B. Conclusions: LV systolic dyssynchrony was more common in LBBB patients with LV dysfunction than those with normal LV function, irrespective of the presence or absence of HF.

Keywords: Heart failure, left bundle branch block, left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, tissue Doppler imaging


How to cite this article:
Raut S, Chavan C, Phalgune D. Assessment of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony in left bundle branch block patients with and without heart failure by tissue doppler imaging. J Indian Acad Echocardiogr Cardiovasc Imaging 2019;3:1-6

How to cite this URL:
Raut S, Chavan C, Phalgune D. Assessment of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony in left bundle branch block patients with and without heart failure by tissue doppler imaging. J Indian Acad Echocardiogr Cardiovasc Imaging [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Jul 16];3:1-6. Available from: http://www.jiaecho.org/text.asp?2019/3/1/1/254250


  Introduction Top


There is increasing financial burden because of costs related to heart failure (HF) morbidity.[1],[2] Despite improved outcome based on pharmacological therapy primarily by inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system[3] and beta-blockade[4] the prognosis remains poor. Large number of patients with HF due to dilated cardiomyopathy had some intraventricular conduction defect in the majority of patients have left bundle branch block (LBBB).

Patients with conduction delays or disturbances in electrical activity experience delay in contraction between right and left ventricles, which decreases cardiac output.[5] Approximately 30% of patients with chronic HF have conduction pathway defects manifested by ventricular dyssynchrony.[6] Mechanical dyssynchrony refers to abnormal prolongation of the timing of contraction or relaxation between atrium and ventricle (atrioventricular dyssynchrony), between the right ventricle and left ventricle (interventricular dyssynchrony) or between different left ventricular (LV) segments (intraventricular or LV dyssynchrony).[7] Intraventricular dyssynchrony is probably the most important level of dyssynchrony evaluation. The most precise methodology for identification and quantification of the intraventricular level of dyssynchrony is probably tissue Doppler imaging (TDI).[8] Detailed echocardiographic assessment using tissue Doppler echocardiography has shown that patients with LBBB have marked intraventricular dyssynchrony that can be improved by biventricular pacing.[9]

Current American College of Cardiology guidelines consider cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) a Class I indication for patients with drug-refractory HF symptoms, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% and wide QRS complex (>120 ms). Multiple single-center trials and cardiac resynchronization in HF trial have demonstrated that LV mechanical dyssynchrony indices (most of which are based on echocardiographic measures) have superior accuracy compared with LV electric dyssynchrony (based on QRS duration) to predict response to CRT and long-term outcome.[10],[11],[12] The purpose of this research is to compare LV mechanical dyssynchrony in LBBB patients with and without HF and to compare various methods of LV systolic dyssynchrony assessment by TDI.


  Materials and Methods Top


One hundred and sixteen patients of >18 years of age admitted between June 2014 and May 2016 with a diagnosis of LBBB and ready to participate were included in this observational study. Permission was obtained from the ethics committee and scientific advisory committee of the institution. Written informed consent of the patients was obtained after explaining the details of the study, and the risk involved. The study included patients with LBBB (i.e., QRS duration >120 ms) with and without HF. Exclusion criteria were patient with LBBB and acute myocardial infarction, patients on CRT, patients with the acute coronary syndrome (≤4 weeks), rheumatic valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation, or other atrial arrhythmias, previously implanted working pacemaker, and poorly echogenic patients in whom acquiring good quality images and a loop were not possible.

Based on previous study,[13] setting an alpha error at 0.05, and power at 80%, sample size of 116 patients was calculated by the formula.[14] Fifty-eight patients of LBBB with HF, of which 50 patients had LV systolic dysfunction and 8 patients had normal LV function, whereas 58 LBBB patients without HF, of which 50 patients had normal LV function and 8 patients had LV systolic dysfunction were included.

A detailed history of each patient with particular reference to demographic data, symptoms of HF, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmia was noted. Drug history, particularly about the HF medications was noted. Patients underwent general physical examination including pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate, jugular venous pressure, and systemic examination of the cardiovascular system. In all patients, standard 12-lead electro cardiography (ECG) was taken, and QRS duration was measured from the widest QRS complex from lead 2, V1 and V6. ECG was recorded at the speed of 25 mm/s. HF was defined by Framingham HF diagnostic criteria.[15],[16]

All patients underwent conventional two-dimensional echocardiography for global LV function assessment by measuring LV end-diastolic and end systolic volumes and LVEF using the modified biplane Simpson's rule. Dyssynchrony assessment was done using the following parameters.

Systolic dyssynchrony

Longitudinal tissue Doppler velocity

The present study used color-coded tissue Doppler velocity for dyssynchrony assessment.

Color-coded tissue Doppler data acquisition was done. Three standard imaging planes were recorded as follows: apical 4-chamber view, apical 2-chamber view, and apical long-axis view. LV ejection interval was determined by using pulsed Doppler from an apical five-chamber or apical long-axis view where the LV outflow tract was seen and velocity recorded.

Color tissue Doppler data analysis

Color TDI data were analyzed offline using the customized software.[7] Measurements were made by two independent observers blinded to clinical outcome. Tissue velocity curves obtained by placing sample volumes in opposing basal and mid segments of septal, lateral, inferior, anterior and posterior walls were analyzed.

The following parameters were calculated and recorded:

Systolic dyssynchrony

  1. Opposing wall delay in ejection phase-Time to peak systolic velocity (4 segments)-Apical 4-chamber and apical long-axis views ≥65 ms
  2. Standard deviation (SD) of the 6 basal, 6 mid-LV segments in ejection phase (Yu index)-Time to peak systolic velocity (12 segments)-Apical 4-chamber, apical 2-chamber and apical long-axis views ≥33 ms
  3. Maximal delay of the 6-basal, 6-mid LV segments in ejection phase-Time to peak systolic velocity (12 segments)-Apical 4-chamber, apical 2-chamber and apical long-axis ≥100 ms.


In the present study, LV mechanical systolic dyssynchrony by opposing wall delay criteria was said to be present when 4 out of 8 segments (mid septal, mid-lateral, basal septal, basal lateral segments in apical 4-chamber view, mid anterior, mid posterior, basal anterior, basal posterior segments in apical 3-chamber view) studied had LV systolic dyssynchrony with cut-off value of ≥65 ms. LV systolic dyssynchrony by TDI was diagnosed when LV systolic dyssynchrony was present with any one of the criteria of opposing wall delay, Yu index, and maximum delay.

Data analysis

Data collected was entered into the Excel 2007 and analysis of data was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows version 20, IBM Corporation, Chicago USA. Data on categorical variables arepresented as a percentage of cases. Data on continuous variables are presented as the mean ± SD Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare qualitative variables, whereas ANOVA test was used to compare quantitative variables. The confidence limit for statistical significance was fixed at 95% level with value of P <0.05.


  Results Top


A total number of 116 patient having complete LBBB fulfilling inclusion criteria were included in the present study. Five (4.3%) were <40 years, 21 (18.1%) were between 41 and 50 years, 41 (35.3%) were between 51 and 60 years, 34 (29.3%) were between 61 and 70 years of age, whereas 15 (12.9%) were >70 years of age. Seventy-three (62.9%) LBBB patients were male, whereas 43 (37.1%) were female.

LBBB patients were grouped into four classes according to their LV function and the presence or absence of HF.

  • Group A-Normal LV function without HF (50 patients)
  • Group B– Normal LV function with HF (8 patients)
  • Group C-LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) with HF (50 patients)
  • Group D-LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) without HF (8 patients).


As shown in [Table 1], there was no statistically significant difference in mean age, gender, H/O diabetes mellitus, H/O hypertension, the QRS duration between various subgroups of LV function and HF patients. LV systolic dyssynchrony was significantly higher (P <0.001) in Group C 42/50 (84%) and Group D 6/8 (75.0%) as compared to Group A 13/50 (26%) and Group B 4/8 (50%).
Table 1: Demographic characteristics

Click here to view


LV systolic dyssynchrony by TDI was said to be present when dyssynchrony was present with any one of the criteria of opposing wall delay, Yu index, and maximum delay. LV systolic dyssynchrony was present in 65 (56.0%) patients using all TDI criteria. LV systolic dyssynchrony was present in 55 (47.4%), 61 (52.6%), and 58 (50%) by opposing wall, Yu index, and maximum delay criteria, respectively. Mean LVEF was significantly higher in groups A (59.55) and B (59.63) as compared to Groups C (31.62) and D (38.38).

As depicted in [Table 2], LV systolic dyssynchrony was significantly higher in Group C and Group D as compared to Group A and Group B by using opposing wall delay (P <0.001), Yu index (P <0.001), and maximum delay (P <0.001) imaging criteria. Mean Yu index (P <0.001) and mean maximum delay (P <0.001) were significantly higher in Group C and Group D as compared to Group A and Group B.
Table 2: Various left ventricular systolic dyssynchrony criteria with subgroups

Click here to view


As shown in [Table 3], there was no statistically significant difference in the presence of LV systolic dyssynchrony and QRS duration when they are compared in each subgroup of LV function and HF.
Table 3: Left ventricular systolic dyssynchrony versus QRS duration in subgroups

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In all 116 patients with LBBB were included in the present study; they were grouped into four classes according to their LV function and the presence or absence of HF. These subgroups were analyzed for LV systolic dyssynchrony with various parameters of TDI. Results of the present study are compared and discussed with various studies.

Gorcsan et al.,[15] Cleland,[16] and Yu et al.[17] reported intraventricular systolic dyssynchrony in 66%, 60.4%, and 60.4%, respectively, in LBBB patients which were slightly higher than the present study 65/116 (56.0%). Prevalence of dyssynchrony among patients with LBBB with normal LV function without HF was 16% in study by Rao et al.[18] which was lower than the present study 13/50 (26%). De Sutter et al.[19] reported 45% prevalence of intraventricular dyssynchrony in HF patients with preserved LV function which is comparable to the present study 4/8 (50.0%). Bader et al.[20] and Rao et al.[18] in their study reported LV systolic dyssynchrony prevalence of 84% and 72%, respectively, in LBBB patients with LV dysfunction and HF which was similar to the present study 24/50 (84%), whereas De Sutter et al.[19] stated 46% prevalence of LV systolic dyssynchrony in HF patients with LV dysfunction which is less than the present study. Hara et al.[21] reported LV systolic dyssynchrony was present in 72% of the patients with LV dysfunction while in the present study 48/58 (82.8%) of the patients with LV dysfunction had LV systolic dyssynchrony. In the present study, the prevalence of LV dyssynchrony in patients with LV dysfunction was similar in studies conducted by Pitzalis et al.,[22] Ghio et al.[23] and Bleeker et al.[24] Prevalence of LV mechanical systolic dyssynchrony in the study of Perez de Isla et al.[25] by using TDI were similar in the present study.

Hara et al.[21] and Lotfi-Tokaldany et al.[13] reported that mean Yu index was 41 ± 17 ms and 42.33 ± 11.82 ms, respectively, in patients with LV dysfunction while in the present study, mean Yu index was 43.91 ± 9.03 ms in patients with LV dysfunction with HF. Prevalence of LV systolic dyssynchrony in patients with LV systolic dysfunction with HF was similar in both studies using Yu index and opposing wall delay criteria. Miyazaki et al.[26] reported mean Yu index of 48 ms in patients with normal LV function and 54 ms in patients with LV dysfunction, whereas the present study had mean Yu index of 31.6 ms in patients with normal LV function without HF and 43.91 ms in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and HF. In the present study mean Yu index in both the groups was lower than in the study by Miyazaki et al.[26] Yu et al.[10] reported mean Yu index among patients with LV dysfunction similar to the present study.

In the present study prevalence of intraventricular systolic dyssynchrony was 26% in patients with normal LV function by using Yu index criteria which were lower than reported by Miyazaki et al.[26] (85%) using the same criteria, but the prevalence of intraventricular systolic dyssynchrony was similar in both studies in patients with LV dysfunction using Yu index criteria. Prevalence of LV systolic dyssynchrony in study by Lotfi-Tokaldany et al.[13] using Yu index criteria was 73.0% in patients with LV dysfunction while it was 46/58 (79.3%) in the present study.

Miyazaki et al.[26] reported the prevalence of LV dyssynchrony in patients with normal LV function to be 60%–70% by opposing wall delay criteria, whereas in the present study, prevalence was 9/58 (15.5%) by applying same criteria in the same subgroup of patients. In the present study, prevalence of intraventricular systolic dyssynchrony in patients with LV dysfunction was 46/58 (79.3%) compared to a similar subgroup in the study by Miyazaki et al.[26] (73%–75%) and Lotfi-Tokaldany et al.[13] (35.1%–43.2%) with opposing wall delay criteria.

Prevalence of LV systolic dyssynchrony in the study by Lotfi-Tokaldany et al.[13] using the maximum delay in all LV segments was 67.6% in patients with LV dysfunction whereas 41/58 (70.7%) patients with LV dysfunction had LV systolic dyssynchrony by maximum delay criteria in the present study.

Prevalence of LV systolic dyssynchrony was similar in patients with LV dysfunction using various TDI dyssynchrony criteria, but patients without LV dysfunction had a higher prevalence of dyssynchrony in the study by Miyazaki et al.[26] than the present study. Prevalence of LV systolic dyssynchrony varied according to methods used in dyssynchrony assessment[21],[27] which substantiated the findings of current research.

Bader and et al.,[20] Perez de Isla et al.,[25] De Sutter et al.,[19] Pitzalis et al.,[22] Cleland et al.[16] and Bleeker et al.[24] stated that there was no significant difference in the systolic dyssynchrony in patients with QRS duration of 120–150 ms or >150 ms. The present study substantiated these findings. In the present study, LV dyssynchrony was more common in LBBB patients with LV dysfunction with HF than LBBB patients with normal LV function with HF. Study by De Sutter et al.[19] showed no difference in LV systolic dyssynchrony in LBBB patients with HF with or without LV dysfunction. Ghio et al.,[23] van Dijk et al.,[27] and Bleeker et al.[24] reported that LV systolic dyssynchrony was more common in LBBB patients with LV dysfunction and HF than those with normal LV function without HF irrespective of QRS duration. The present study substantiated these findings.

Limitations of the present study were only eight patients with normal LV function with HF and 8 patients with LV dysfunction without HF were included. Tissue velocities are dependent on multiple factors, therefore, the accuracy of tissue velocity mapping is low and it is less reproducible. ECG gating with tissue velocities was used in the present study due to nonavailability of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) at our institute. STE is a recently developed technique for the characterization and quantification of myocardial deformation. By allowing measurement of the different components of myocardial deformation, it provides information which is not available with any of the currently used echocardiographic parameters, including LVEF. STE is a gray-scale based technique which is angle-independent and hence permits more comprehensive assessment of myocardial deformation. The STE software identifies these speckles and then tracks them frame-by-frame using a “sum-of-the absolute-differences' algorithm. From this data, the software automatically resolves the magnitude of myocardial deformation in different directions and generates strain and strain rate curves.[28] In the present study, we have not done STE as it was not available in our institute.


  Conclusions Top


LV systolic dyssynchrony was more common in LBBB patients with LV dysfunction than those with normal LV function, irrespective of the presence or absence of HF. QRS duration and LV systolic dyssynchrony did not have any significant association in LBBB patients. TDI criteria may be useful to diagnose a patient with LV systolic dyssynchrony.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Writing Group Members, Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, et al. Executive summary: Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2016 update: A Report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016;133:447-54.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
O'Connell JB, Bristow MR. Economic impact of heart failure in the United States: Time for a different approach. J Heart Lung Transplant 1994;13:S107-12.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Solvd Investigators, Yusuf S, Pitt B, Davis CE, Hood WB, Cohn JN, et al. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293-302.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, Colucci WS, Fowler MB, Gilbert EM, et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. U.S. Carvedilol heart failure study group. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1349-55.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Burkhardt JD, Wilkoff BL. Interventional electrophysiology and cardiac resynchronization therapy: Delivering electrical therapies for heart failure. Circulation 2007;115:2208-20.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, Delurgio DB, Leon AR, Loh E, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1845-53.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gorcsan J 3rd, Abraham T, Agler DA, Bax JJ, Derumeaux G, Grimm RA, et al. Echocardiography for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Recommendations for performance and reporting – a report from the American Society of Echocardiography Dyssynchrony Writing Group Endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2008;21:191-213.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Yu CM, Hayes DL, Auricchio A, editors. Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy. 2nd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Yu CM, Chau E, Sanderson JE, Fan K, Tang MO, Fung WH, et al. Tissue Doppler echocardiographic evidence of reverse remodeling and improved synchronicity by simultaneously delaying regional contraction after biventricular pacing therapy in heart failure. Circulation 2002;105:438-45.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Yu CM, Lin H, Zhang Q, Sanderson JE. High prevalence of left ventricular systolic and diastolic asynchrony in patients with congestive heart failure and normal QRS duration. Heart 2003;89:54-60.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Cazeau S, Ritter P, Bakdach S, Lazarus A, Limousin M, Henao L, et al. Four chamber pacing in dilated cardiomyopathy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994;17:1974-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kass DA. An epidemic of dyssynchrony: But what does it mean? J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:12-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lotfi-Tokaldany M, Roomi ZS, Kasemisaeid A, Sadeghian H. Comparison of echocardiographic markers of cardiac dyssynchrony and latest left ventricular activation site in heart failure patients with and without left bundle branch block. J Tehran Heart Cent 2013;8:95-100.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Montusky H. Intuitive Biostatistics. New York: Oxford university Press; 1995.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Gorcsan J 3rd, Kanzaki H, Bazaz R, Dohi K, Schwartzman D. Usefulness of echocardiographic tissue synchronization imaging to predict acute response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:1178-81.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1539-49.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Yu CM, Zhang Q, Fung JW, Chan HC, Chan YS, Yip GW, et al. Anovel tool to assess systolic asynchrony and identify responders of cardiac resynchronization therapy by tissue synchronization imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:677-84.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Rao HB, Krishnaswami R, Kalavakolanu S, Calambur N. Ventricular dyssynchrony patterns in left bundle branch block, with and without heart failure. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J 2010;10:115-21.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
De Sutter J, Van de Veire NR, Muyldermans L, De Backer T, Hoffer E, Vaerenberg M, et al. Prevalence of mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular function (a report from the Belgian multicenter registry on dyssynchrony). Am J Cardiol 2005;96:1543-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bader H, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, Reuter S, Jaïs P, Haïssaguerre M, et al. Intra-left ventricular electromechanical asynchrony. A new independent predictor of severe cardiac events in heart failure patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:248-56.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Hara H, Oyenuga OA, Tanaka H, Adelstein EC, Onishi T, McNamara DM, et al. The relationship of QRS morphology and mechanical dyssynchrony to long-term outcome following cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2680-91.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Pitzalis MV, Iacoviello M, Romito R, Massari F, Rizzon B, Luzzi G, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy tailored by echocardiographic evaluation of ventricular asynchrony. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1615-22.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ghio S, Constantin C, Klersy C, Serio A, Fontana A, Campana C, et al. Interventricular and intraventricular dyssynchrony are common in heart failure patients, regardless of QRS duration. Eur Heart J 2004;25:571-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Bleeker GB, Schalij MJ, Molhoek SG, Holman ER, Verwey HF, Steendijk P, et al. Frequency of left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure and a narrow QRS complex. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:140-2.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Perez de Isla L, Florit J, Garcia-Fernandez MA, Evangelista A, Zamorano J; RAVE (Registro de Asincronía Ventricular en España-Spanish Ventricular Asynchrony Registry) study investigators. et al. Prevalence of echocardiographically detected ventricular asynchrony in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005;18:850-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Miyazaki C, Powell BD, Bruce CJ, Espinosa RE, Redfield MM, Miller FA, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic dyssynchrony assessment by tissue velocity and strain imaging in subjects with or without systolic dysfunction and with or without left bundle-branch block. Circulation 2008;117:2617-25.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
van Dijk J, Dijkmans PA, Götte MJ, Spreeuwenberg MD, Visser CA, Kamp O, et al. Evaluation of global left ventricular function and mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with an asymptomatic left bundle branch block: A real-time 3D echocardiography study. Eur J Echocardiogr 2008;9:40-6.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Bansal M, Kasliwal RR. How do I do it? Speckle-tracking echocardiography. Indian Heart J 2013;65:117-23.  Back to cited text no. 28
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed696    
    Printed57    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded156    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]