Cargando…

Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, effectiveness, and safety of modified right heart contrast transthoracic echocardiography (cTTE) in comparison with the traditional method. MATERIAL/METHODS: We performed a modified right heart cTTE using saline mixed with a smal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Yi, Zeng, Jie, Yin, Lixue, Zhang, Mei, Hou, Dailun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27668027
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/PJR.897388
_version_ 1782453005398835200
author Wang, Yi
Zeng, Jie
Yin, Lixue
Zhang, Mei
Hou, Dailun
author_facet Wang, Yi
Zeng, Jie
Yin, Lixue
Zhang, Mei
Hou, Dailun
author_sort Wang, Yi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, effectiveness, and safety of modified right heart contrast transthoracic echocardiography (cTTE) in comparison with the traditional method. MATERIAL/METHODS: We performed a modified right heart cTTE using saline mixed with a small sample of patient’s own blood. Samples were agitated with varying intensity. This study protocol involved microscopic analysis and patient evaluation. 1. Microscopic analysis: After two contrast samples had been agitated 10 or 20 times, they underwent a comparison of bubble size, bubble number, and red blood cell morphology. 2. Patient analysis: 40 patients with suspected RLS (right- to-left shunt) were enrolled. All patients underwent right heart contrast echocardiography. Oxygen saturation, transit time and duration, presence of RLS, change in indirect bilirubin and urobilinogen concentrations were compared afterward. RESULTS: Modified method generated more bubbles (P<0.05), but the differences in bubble size were not significant (P>0.05). Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with RLS (60%) using the modified method compared to 16 patients (40%) with the traditional method. The transit time of ASb20 group was the shortest (P<0.05). However, the duration time in this group was much longer (P<0.05). Also, in semi-quantitative analysis mean rank of RLS was higher after injecting the modified contrast agent agitated 20 times (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Modified right heart contrast echocardiography is a reliable, effective and safe method of detecting cardiovascular RLS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5019139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher International Scientific Literature, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50191392016-09-23 Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study Wang, Yi Zeng, Jie Yin, Lixue Zhang, Mei Hou, Dailun Pol J Radiol Original Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, effectiveness, and safety of modified right heart contrast transthoracic echocardiography (cTTE) in comparison with the traditional method. MATERIAL/METHODS: We performed a modified right heart cTTE using saline mixed with a small sample of patient’s own blood. Samples were agitated with varying intensity. This study protocol involved microscopic analysis and patient evaluation. 1. Microscopic analysis: After two contrast samples had been agitated 10 or 20 times, they underwent a comparison of bubble size, bubble number, and red blood cell morphology. 2. Patient analysis: 40 patients with suspected RLS (right- to-left shunt) were enrolled. All patients underwent right heart contrast echocardiography. Oxygen saturation, transit time and duration, presence of RLS, change in indirect bilirubin and urobilinogen concentrations were compared afterward. RESULTS: Modified method generated more bubbles (P<0.05), but the differences in bubble size were not significant (P>0.05). Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with RLS (60%) using the modified method compared to 16 patients (40%) with the traditional method. The transit time of ASb20 group was the shortest (P<0.05). However, the duration time in this group was much longer (P<0.05). Also, in semi-quantitative analysis mean rank of RLS was higher after injecting the modified contrast agent agitated 20 times (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Modified right heart contrast echocardiography is a reliable, effective and safe method of detecting cardiovascular RLS. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5019139/ /pubmed/27668027 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/PJR.897388 Text en © Pol J Radiol, 2016 This is an open access article. Unrestricted non-commercial use is permitted provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Wang, Yi
Zeng, Jie
Yin, Lixue
Zhang, Mei
Hou, Dailun
Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study
title Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study
title_full Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study
title_fullStr Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study
title_short Modified Right Heart Contrast Echocardiography Versus Traditional Method in Diagnosis of Right-to-Left Shunt: A Comparative Study
title_sort modified right heart contrast echocardiography versus traditional method in diagnosis of right-to-left shunt: a comparative study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27668027
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/PJR.897388
work_keys_str_mv AT wangyi modifiedrightheartcontrastechocardiographyversustraditionalmethodindiagnosisofrighttoleftshuntacomparativestudy
AT zengjie modifiedrightheartcontrastechocardiographyversustraditionalmethodindiagnosisofrighttoleftshuntacomparativestudy
AT yinlixue modifiedrightheartcontrastechocardiographyversustraditionalmethodindiagnosisofrighttoleftshuntacomparativestudy
AT zhangmei modifiedrightheartcontrastechocardiographyversustraditionalmethodindiagnosisofrighttoleftshuntacomparativestudy
AT houdailun modifiedrightheartcontrastechocardiographyversustraditionalmethodindiagnosisofrighttoleftshuntacomparativestudy