| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Cardiac Imaging |
1 From the Departments of Neurology (W.K.B., B.M.D., F.S., T.H., U.B.), Cardiology (S.R.H.), and Psychiatry (H.J.K.), University of Regensburg, Universitätsstrasse 84, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. Received September 24, 2001; revision requested November 21; final revision received May 7, 2002; accepted May 16. Address correspondence to W.K.B. (e-mail: wendelin.blersch@klinik.uni-regensburg.de).
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of contrast material–enhanced transcranial color-coded sonography (c-TCCS) compared with that of contrast-enhanced transesophageal echocardiography (c-TEE) for detection of cardiac right-to-left shunt.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack were admitted to the hospital and were examined by using c-TCCS and c-TEE. High-intensity transient signals (HITS) were counted for 25 seconds after the end of the Valsalva maneuver, and the numbers of HITS were classified in one of four categories (zero HITS, one to 10 HITS, >10 HITS without curtain, and curtain). A statistically significant difference was calculated with the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: HITS were counted in 21 (52%) patients by using c-TCCS and c-TEE. With both tests, no HITS were counted in 15 (38%) patients. In two (5%) patients, no HITS were counted with c-TEE but three HITS in one patient and five HITS in the other were counted with c-TCCS. In two (5%) patients, no HITS were counted with c-TCCS, but a small patent foramen ovale (PFO) was seen at c-TEE. With c-TCCS, the sensitivity was 91% (21 of 23) and the specificity was 88% (15 of 17). In 23 patients examined with c-TCCS, 14 (61%) patients had category 1 PFO; seven (30%) patients, category 2 PFO; and two (9%) patients, category 3 PFO. Mean HITS count in patients with category 1 PFO was 4.4 and that for those with category 2 PFO was 27.6.
CONCLUSION: c-TCCS is a sensitive noninvasive method for detecting cardiac right-to-left shunt and is as sensitive as c-TEE.
© RSNA, 2002
Index terms: Brain, infarction, 10.78 • Brain, US, 10.1298, 10.12988, 10.12989 • Heart, diseases, 514.1411 • Heart, US, 50.1298, 50.12988, 50.12989 • Ultrasound (US), contrast media, 10.12988
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Ghosh, A. K. Ghosh, and S. K. Ghosh Patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm in cryptogenic stroke Postgrad. Med. J., March 1, 2007; 83(977): 173 - 177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Souteyrand, P. Motreff, J.-R. Lusson, R. Rodriguez, E. Geoffroy, C. Dauphin, J.-Y. Boire, D. Lamaison, and J. Cassagnes Comparison of transthoracic echocardiography using second harmonic imaging, transcranial Doppler and transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of patent foramen ovale in stroke patients Eur J Echocardiogr, March 1, 2006; 7(2): 147 - 154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Hara, R. Virmani, E. Ladich, S. Mackey-Bojack, J. Titus, M. Reisman, W. Gray, M. Nakamura, M. Mooney, A. Poulose, et al. Patent Foramen Ovale: Current Pathology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Status J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 1, 2005; 46(9): 1768 - 1776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F J Pinto When and how to diagnose patent foramen ovale Heart, April 1, 2005; 91(4): 438 - 440. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Wu, J. F. Malouf, J. A. Dearani, D. J. Hagler, G. S. Reeder, G. W. Petty, and B. K. Khandheria Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke: Current Understanding and Management Options Arch Intern Med, May 10, 2004; 164(9): 950 - 956. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
