Abstract 543: Early Diastolic Mitral Annulus Velocity (e′) Varies Significantly Between Different Echocardiographic Machines in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease
Background: Recently, early diastolic mitral annulus velocity (e′) has been used as a parameter of diastolic function using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI). However, little data is available about difference of e′ between different echocardiographic machines. The aim of this study was to investigate any potential differences in measured e′ between different echocardiographic machines in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Methods: Standard echocardiography with TDI was performed at the same time point using two echocardiographic machines (Vivid 7, GE and Sequoia 512, Siemens) in 100 patients (mean age, 69 ± 13 years) with documented cardiovascular disease. Parameters measured included: mitral inflow velocity, left ventricular (LV) outflow velocity, and mitral annulus velocities (septal, lateral, right ventricular free wall). In 57 patients, LV end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) was measured during cardiac catheterization.
Results: Mitral inflow and LV outflow parameters were not significantly different between both machines. However, e′ at all mitral segments was significantly lower by Vivid 7 compared to Sequoia 512 (septal: 5.3 ± 1.8 vs 6.8 ± 1.8, lateral: 7.5 ± 1.8 vs 9.7 ± 2.5, right ventricular free wall: 7.9 ± 2.6 vs 9.7 ± 2.6 cm/s, all p<0.001). Consequently, E/e′ was significantly higher by Vivid 7 than Sequoia 512 (septal: 14.8±8.1 vs 11.9±7.2, lateral: 10.1±5.8 vs 8.3±3.7, both p<0.001). While there was a strong correlation in E/e′ (septal) observed between both machines (r=0.825, p<0.001), condition with E/e′ (septal) ≥ 15 in Vivid 7 and < 15 in Sequoia 512 were observed in 16 patients. There was a little better correlation between LVEDP and E/e′ in Sequoia 512 (r = 0.394, p = 0.003) compared with Vivid 7 (r = 0.374, p = 0.005).
Conclusion: We demonstrate that measured e′ could vary significantly between different echocardiographic machines. This suggests that the individual characteristics of echocardiographic machines must be taken into account when estimating LV filling pressure using TDI.