This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Boonyaratavej, S. Articles by Seward, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boonyaratavej, S. Articles by Seward, J. B.

CLINICAL STUDIES

Comparison of mitral inflow and superior vena cava Doppler velocities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and constrictive pericarditis

^a Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
^* Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA

Manuscript received August 21, 1996; revised manuscript received July 30, 1998, accepted August 20, 1998.

Address for correspondence: Dr. Jae K. Oh, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905

Objective. This study was conducted to determine whether Doppler recording of superior vena cava flow velocities can differentiate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from constrictive pericarditis in patients with a respiratory variation of 25% in mitral inflow E velocity.

Background. Although respiratory variation (25%) in mitral E velocity is the main diagnostic criterion for constrictive pericarditis by Doppler echocardiography, it can also be present in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Because the respiratory variation is due to increased change in intrathoracic pressure with respiration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and to dissociation of intrathoracic-intracardiac pressure changes in constriction, it was hypothesized that the Doppler flow velocity pattern in the superior vena cava (affected by intrathoracic pressure) would be different in these two conditions.

Methods. Pulsed-wave Doppler recording of mitral and superior vena cava flow velocities in 20 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who had 25% respiratory variation in mitral E-wave velocity were compared with those of 20 patients who had surgically proved constrictive pericarditis.

Results. Constrictive pericarditis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar respiratory variation in mitral E velocity (41% versus 46%). In the latter, the E/A ratio was lower (inspiration, 0.8 ± 0.3 versus 1.5 ± 0.7 [p < 0.0001]; expiration, 1.0 ± 0.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.7 [p < 0.0001]) and deceleration time longer (inspiration, 198 ± 53 ms versus 137 ± 32 ms; expiration, 225 ± 43 ms vs. 161 ± 33 ms [p < 0.0001]). Inspiratory superior vena cava systolic forward flow velocity was significantly higher in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (72.9 ± 22.6 cm/s versus 36.2 ± 9.3 cm/s, p < 0.0001), while expiratory systolic forward flow velocity was similar. Hence, there was a significantly greater respiratory variation in superior vena cava systolic forward flow velocity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without an overlap with constrictive pericarditis (39.5 ± 18.8 cm/s vs. 4.2 ± 3.4 cm/s, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions. Despite a similar respiratory variation in mitral E wave velocities, mitral inflow variables in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are less restrictive compared with those in constrictive pericarditis. More importantly, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease show a marked increase in inspiratory superior vena cava systolic forward flow velocity, which is not seen in patients with constrictive pericarditis.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   FEV = forced expiratory volume in 1 s   FVC = forced vital capacity

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Schwefer, R. Aschenbach, J. Heidemann, C. Mey, and H. Lapp Constrictive pericarditis, still a diagnostic challenge: comprehensive review of clinical management Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2009; 36(3): 502 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Enriquez-Sarano, V. T. Nkomo, and H. Michelena Principles and Practice of Echocardiography in Cardiac Surgery Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 315 - 348. [Full Text]

				E. L Ivens, B. I Munt, and R. R Moss Pericardial disease: what the general cardiologist needs to know Heart, August 1, 2007; 93(8): 993 - 1000. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. C. Little and G. L. Freeman Pericardial Disease Circulation, March 28, 2006; 113(12): 1622 - 1632. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Task Force members, B. Maisch, P. M. Seferovic, A. D. Ristic, R. Erbel, R. Rienmuller, Y. Adler, W. Z. Tomkowski, G. Thiene, M. H. Yacoub, et al. Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases Executive Summary: The Task Force on the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., April 1, 2004; 25(7): 587 - 610. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Palka, A. Lange, J. E. Donnelly, and P. Nihoyannopoulos Differentiation Between Restrictive Cardiomyopathy and Constrictive Pericarditis by Early Diastolic Doppler Myocardial Velocity Gradient at the Posterior Wall Circulation, August 8, 2000; 102(6): 655 - 662. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]