Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparative Analysis of Conventional and Speckle Tracking Echocardiographic Variables between Patients with Unrejected Heart Transplants and Healthy Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is essential for the assessment of patients with heart transplants. However, normal values in such individuals are not clearly defined.

OBJECTIVES: To compare conventional echocardiographic and speckle tracking variables between patients with unrejected heart transplants and healthy individuals.

METHODS: :A prospective study was conducted with adult patients having undergone heart transplantation at least one year earlier and submitted to endomyocardial biopsy followed by transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Conventional TTE measures and mechanical heart strain assessments using speckle tracking were performed and the results were compared to those of a group of healthy volunteers. Statistical significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05).

RESULTS: Thirty-six transplant patients without rejection were analyzed and compared to 30 healthy individuals. Chagas disease was the main reason for transplantation. Lower left ventricular global longitudinal strain expressed in absolute values was found (11.99% in transplant patients vs. 20.60% in controls; p <0.0001), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (16.67% in transplant patients vs. 25.50% in controls; p <0.0001) and myocardial work indices (p < 0.0001) as well as a larger size of the left atrium (38.17 ml/m2 in transplant patients vs. 18.98 ml/m2 in controls; p <0.0001) and greater mass and relative wall thickness (p <0.0001).

CONCLUSION: Stable patients having undergone heart transplants without rejection have differences concerning echocardiographic variables compared to healthy individuals. These findings indicate that conventional echocardiographic measures and heart mechanics are altered in transplant patients even in the absence of rejection. Such findings are relevant to the clinical context and follow-up of the patient.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app