|
Objective: To investigate the strain rate imaging (SRI) quantitative evaluation of hypertensive patients with left atrial function value. Methods: Left ventricular end-systolic left atrial anteroposterior diameter (LAD) lt; 3. 6cm as normal left atrial hypertension (high blood pressure group Ⅰ); the LV end-systolic left atrial anteroposterior diameter (LAD) ≥ 3. 6cm as hypertension, left atrial enlargement group (hypertension group Ⅱ): (a) group Ⅰ, 88 cases of hypertension, mean (61.22 ± 4.93) years, (2) hypertension group Ⅱ 85 cases, the average (62.98 ± 5.89) years. Select a healthy control group of 80 cases over the same period, the average (60.11 ± 5.58) years old. Use the Dutch Philips iE33 color Doppler ultrasound imaging device, the measurement of left atrial anteroposterior diameter (LAD), left atrial maximum volume (LAESV), left atrial volume before contraction begins (LAPV), left atrial minimum volume (LAEDV), calculate the left Room stroke volume (LASV). Measured in the apical four-chamber view peak mitral flow velocity E, A, E / A, mitral annulus diameter (d), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mitral A wave integral (AVTI) and two mitral flow total score (TVTI), calculate the left atrial filling fraction (LAFF), pulmonary vein systolic peak velocity spectrum and diastolic peak velocity ratio (S / D), left atrial ejection force (LAF). In TDI mode, enter QLAB analysis software, start the SQ after left atrial strain rate analysis. Get atrial septal and posterior wall of the left atrial strain rate curves were measured between the left atrium and left atrial contraction Built in posterior wall peak strain rate, and calculate the average value (SRa). SPSS13.0 statistical software, data processing, multi-measurement data were compared between groups using single factor analysis of variance, correlation analysis using Pearson correlation analysis to a = 0.05 as the significance level. Results: 1. LVEF in the healthy control group, hypertension group I, II hypertension was no significant difference between the groups (P gt; 0.05), E / A and S / D in the healthy control group and the hypertensive group I no statistically significant difference between (P gt; 0.05), hypertension group II E / A is smaller than the healthy control group and hypertension group I (P lt; 0.05), hypertension group II S / D is greater than the healthy control group and hypertension I group P lt; 0.05); 2. hypertensive group II LAESV, LAEDV greater than the healthy control group and hypertension group I, the difference was statistically significant (P lt; 0.05), hypertension group I than the healthy control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P gt; 0.05); hypertension group II LAPV, LASV group I than hypertension and healthy control group, the difference was statistically significant (P lt; 0.05), in the healthy control group, high blood pressure showed an increasing trend between group I, the difference was statistically significant (P lt; 0.05); 3.LAFF, LAF: hypertension group II gt; hypertensive group I gt; healthy control group, the differences were statistically significant ( P lt; 0.05); 4. Left atrial peak systolic strain rate (SRa) hypertension group than in the healthy control group I, group II than hypertension hypertensive group I, the differences were statistically significant (P lt; 0.05), while Group II SRa hypertension was significantly greater than the healthy control group (P lt; 0.01); 5. SRa values ??of traditional evaluation of left atrial function index (LAF) was a significant positive correlation (r = 0.85, P lt; 0.01). Conclusion: Strain Rate Imaging (SRI) can be quantitatively evaluated in patients with essential hypertension left atrial function, and its quantitative evaluation of left atrial function as a new technology, as reflected earlier in patients with left ventricular diastolic hypertension function of the change provides a new way of thinking.
|