<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">WJCD</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-5329</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/wjcd.2018.812055</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">WJCD-89362</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Assessment of Left Ventricular Mechanical Function in Cardiac Syndrome X: Speckle Tracking Imaging Study
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mahmoud</surname><given-names>Kamel</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ahmed</surname><given-names>Emara</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Said</surname><given-names>Shalaby Montaser</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mahmoud</surname><given-names>Said</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Menufia University Hospital, Shibin El Kom, Egypt</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>19</day><month>12</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>08</volume><issue>12</issue><fpage>557</fpage><lpage>568</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>1,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2018</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2018</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>24,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Objective: 
  Early detection of LV mechanical abnormalities
   
  in patients with cardiac syndrome X (CSX) by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE). <b>Background:</b> 
  Cardiac syndrome X is a triad of angina pectoris, positive stress test for myocardial ischemia and angiographically free coronary arteries. 
   Two dimensional speckle tracking 
  
  echocardiography (2D-STE) provides a more sensitive method for evaluation of global and segmental LV function than conventional two dimensional echocardiographic parameters. <b>Subjects and Methods: </b>Seventy patients proved to have CSX and 20 healthy control volunteers were included with a mean age of 49.43 &#177;
   
  5.92 vs
  .
   49.40 &#177;
  
  6.27 years respectively with no difference regarding sex for both patients and controls. Patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathies, inflammatory diseases, myocarditis and arrhythmias were excluded.
   
  All included individuals were subjected to complete conventional echocardiographic assessment and left ventricular global and segmental mechanical function was assessed using 2D based strain and strain rate (longitudinal, radial and circumferential) imaging. <b>Results:</b> There was no statistically significant difference in LV conventional echo parameters between
   
  patients and controls. However,
   
  global mean longitudinal strain was significantly lower in patients than controls (
  -
  15.05 &#177;
   
  3.28 vs. 
  -
  20.22 &#177;
   
  2.49; p
   
  &lt;
   
  0.001). For radial and circumferential strain stain
  , 
  there was no
   
  significant changes between patients vs
  .
   controls (29.75 &#177;
   
  18.26
   
  vs. 28.09 &#177;
   
  15.48; p
   
  =
   
  0.74) and (
  -
  19.88 &#177;
   
  8.63 vs. 
  -
  21.93 &#177;
   
  5.69; p
   
  &lt;
   
  0.05) respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> In
   
  spite of normal conventional echo parameters among patients and controls, LV longitudinal strain and strain rate by 2D speckle tracking imaging were lower in the patients denoting subclinical left ventricular mechanical dysfunction in patients with CSX.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cardiac Syndrome X</kwd><kwd> Left Ventricular Systolic and Diastolic Function</kwd><kwd> 2D-Speckle Tracking Strain and Strain Rate Imaging</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Cardiac syndrome X is a triad of angina pectoris, positive stress test for myocardial ischemia and angiographically free coronary arteries. Although syndrome X patients have a better cardiovascular prognosis than patients with classical coronary arteries stenosis, patients can suffer from incapacitating and agonizing chest pain which robs them of their quality of life [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref1">1</xref>] . While various avenues of research have been undertaken in order to more widely explore the symptoms associated with syndrome X, there are no definitive conclusions as regards the exact pathogenesis of the condition [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref2">2</xref>] .</p><p>Endothelial dysfunctions, microvascular dysfunction with coronary microvascular spasms, abnormal coronary vascular resistance, and subendocardial ischemia have been recognized as possible pathophysiologic mechanisms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>Several studies have found myocardial perfusion abnormalities in patients with CSX using positron emission tomography [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref4">4</xref>] , scintigraphic myocardial perfusion imaging [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref5">5</xref>] , and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref6">6</xref>] . Although left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction has been shown in studies using conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiography, LV systolic function was found to be normal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref8">8</xref>] .</p><p>Two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging is an adequate method for assessing left ventricular mechanical function and detecting subclinical dysfunction. Being angle-independent allows two dimensional measurement of deformation. Speckle tracking derived strain and strain rate were more accurate and reproducible than Doppler tissue imaging derived strain and strain rate. Good-quality grey scale image is mandatory for speckle tracking measurement [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>The study aims to assess LV mechanical function in patients with CSX by STE for early recognition of LV subclinical abnormalities.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Patients and Methods</title><p>1) Patient Selection</p><p>We prospectively examined 90 individuals (70 patient proved to have cardiac syndrome X (group I) and 20 age and sex matched healthy volunteers as a controls (group II) selected from Cardiology department Menoufia University Hospital during the period between April 2014, and June 2016.</p><p>They were enrolled in the study after obtaining their written informed consent, and approval of Ethics Committee of Menoufia university hospital. Patient’s inclusion criteria were, typical angina, a positive exercise stress test (Stress E.C.G., Doubutamine stress Echo or Myocardial Perfusion Imaging), and angiographically normal coronary arteries. Exclusion criteria for both groups were diabetes mellitus, hypertension, inflammatory diseases, primary valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathies, myocarditis, arrhythmias, and angiographically documented significant coronary arteries lesions. Stress ECG was done for all control group and we excluded those with positive results.</p><p>2) Conventional echocardiographic examination was done using the commercially available Vivid 9, GE Vingmed, Norway equipped with a 1.7 - 4 MHz phased-array transducer. Echocardiographic imaging was obtained in the parasternal short and long axis, and apical 4.2 and 3-chamber views using standard transducer positions. LV end-diastolic &amp; systolic diameters, posterior wall and septal walls thickness, ejection fraction and left atrial diameter were measured in accordance with the recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref10">10</xref>] . Pulsed and continuous-wave Doppler was used for diastolic function and valvular assessment.</p><p>Doppler tissue imaging derived early (e) and late (a), Mitral annular velocity waves were measured from septal annular site in apical four chamber view and the ratio of early mitral flow E wave to the early annular wave (E/e ratio) was measured.</p><p>3) Speckle tracking imaging was used to measure global longitudinal, circumferential and radial Strain (S) and strain rate (SR). From apical 4, 2 and 3 chamber views using frame rate between 40 - 90 or at least 40% of HR, three consecutive cardiac cycles and another three cycles from the short axis view at the level of the LV papillary muscles were stored for post-processing to measure global longitudinal and both circumferential and radial S and SR respectively.</p><p>Then after activation of automated function imaging system (AFI), all data were transported for off-line analysis, using Vivid 9 system Echo Pac, GE Vingmed, Horton, Norway where peak systolic strain (Ssys), peak systolic strain rate (SRsys), early (SRe) &amp; late diastolic strain rate (SRa) were assessed and measured.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Statistical Analyses</title><p>Using statistical package for the social science software (SPSS) version 16, data from the patients and controls were collected and subjected to statistical analysis.</p><p>The level of significance is 95%. So P value &gt; 0.05 was considered a non-significant result, P value &lt; 0.05 was considered a significant result, and that &lt; 0.001 was considered a highly significant result.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Results</title><p>The study included 70 patients with CSX, 54% were female, and 46% were males) with mean age 49.43 &#177; 5.92 years, 39 patient had positive stress ECG, 14 patients with positive dobutamine stress echo and 17 patients with positive myocardial perfusion imaging, compared to 20 healthy persons, 9 patients were female and 11 were males with mean age 49.40 &#177; 6.27 years. There was no significant statistical difference between both groups as regarding age and sex (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> &amp; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>There was a non-significant difference between two groups as regards to conventional echocardiographic parameters (LV diastolic and systolic dimension, EF, Doppler derived mitral flow parameters, left atrial &amp; aortic root diameters. However, there was a significantly lower Doppler tissue imaging derived peak early mitral annular velocity (e’) E/e’ in group I compared to group II (P &lt; 0.001 &amp; 0.0009 respectively) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p>Two D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography<p>Global Longitudinal systolic strain and systolic SR were statistically significantly lower in group I than group II (P &lt; 0.001, and P &lt; 0.005 respectively) denoting impaired LV longitudinal systolic mechanical function. There was no significant difference among group I and II as regard to global circumferential and radial strain and SR (P &gt; 0.05 for both values). This means that there was earlier affection of subendocardial fibers which is the main layer responsible for LV longitudinal systolic function. Global longitudinal, circumferential, radial and early diastolic E wave SR, were significantly lower in group I compared to group II (P values were 0.001, 0.03 and 0.002 respectively), denoting that LV diastolic function</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of demographic data &amp; risk factors between both groups</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Clinical Data</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Case (n = 70) Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Control (n = 20) Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >t. test</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p. value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >49.43 &#177; 5.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >49.40 &#177; 6.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.012</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.985</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.333</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="3"  >0.564</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32/70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11/20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38/70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9/20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Smoking</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42/70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13/20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.903</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >HR</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >73.50 &#177; 11.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >74.85 &#177; 10.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.167</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.684</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>HR: Heart Rate, P-value ≤ 0.05 is considered significant, t = student test.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Typed of Stress modalities used in diagnosis of ischemia in case group</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >+ve Stress Modality</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Case</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Stress E.C.G</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Stress Echo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Myocardial Perfusion Image (MPI)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of conventional Echocardiographic parameters between studied groups</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameter</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Case Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Control Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >t. test</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p. value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >IVSD (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95 &#177; 0.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97 &#177; 0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.109</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.743</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >IVSs (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.34 &#177; 0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.34 &#177; 0.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.959</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LVIDd (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.95 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.99 &#177; 0.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.060</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.807</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LVIDs (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.21 &#177; 0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.19 &#177; 0.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.016</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.901</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LVPWd (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97 &#177; 0.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.02 &#177; 0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.623</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.434</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LV EDV (ml)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >117.10 &#177; 27.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119.30 &#177; 31.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.070</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.793</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LV ESV (ml)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.23 &#177; 15.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.05 &#177; 18.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.969</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >EF (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.57 &#177; 6.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.60 &#177; 7.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.264</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.610</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SV (ml)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.33 &#177; 17.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.40 &#177; 20.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.143</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.707</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FS (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.83 &#177; 5.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.60 &#177; 6.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.214</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.645</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AO (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99 &#177; 0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.04 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.097</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.756</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LA (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.99 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.11 &#177; 0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.686</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.412</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LA\AO</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.34 &#177; 0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37 &#177; 0.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.148</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.702</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E velocity (cm/s)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.78 &#177; 17.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.95 &#177; 16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.859</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.069</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A velocity (cm/s)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.04 &#177; 12.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.57 &#177; 7.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.126</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.265</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E/A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.04 &#177; 0.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.20 &#177; 0.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.850</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.399</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E’ (cm/s)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.07 &#177; 3.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81 &#177; 1.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.129</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E/E’</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.98 &#177; 6.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.80 &#177; 3.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.009*</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>IVSD: diastolic interventricular septum dimension, IVSS: systolic interventricular septum dimension, LVIDD: left ventricular end diastolic dimension, LVIDS: left ventricular end systolic dimension, LVPWD: left ventricular posterior wall dimension, EDV : end diastolic volume, ESV : end systolic volume, EF: ejection fraction, FS: fractional shortening, SV: stroke Volume, AO: aortic root diameter, LA: left atrium diameter, LA/AO: left atrium diameter to aortic root diameter ratio, E velocity: mitral early velocity, A velocity: mitral late velocity, E’: mitral annular early velocity, E/A: mitral early and late velocities ratio, E/E’: mitral and mitral annular early velocities ratio, P-value ≤ 0.05 is considered significant, t = student test.</p><p>was more and extensively affected than systolic function (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>-3).</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Discussion</title><p>Cardiacsyndrome X is a combination of anginapectoris, positive stress test for myocardial ischemia and free coronary arteries by coronary angiography [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref1">1</xref>] .</p><p>Although there was no significant difference in conventional systolic and diastolic echocardiographic parameters between group I and II, the main finding of this study was, First, detection of a subclinical LV systolic mechanical dysfunction proved by impaired both regional and global longitudinal strain and strain rate among included patients compared to controls. Second, impaired diastolic function proved by impaired early diastolic longitudinal, radial and circumferential SR in CSX group.</p><p>Conventional echocardiographic parameters failed to detect significant difference in diastolic and systolic functions among patients compared to controls.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of LV Strain between both groups</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >LV Wall Strain</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Case Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Control Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >t. test</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p. value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apical 4 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Longitudinal Strain of SEPT wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.21 &#177; 5.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−19.49 &#177; 4.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.683</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Longitudinal Strain of LAT wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.25 &#177; 4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−19.88 &#177; 3.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Regional Strain of Apical 4 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.23 &#177; 3.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−19.68 &#177; 2.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.944</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Apical 2 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Longitudinal Strain INF wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.09 &#177; 3.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−19.69 &#177; 3.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Longitudinal Strain of ANT wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−14.92 &#177; 3.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.45 &#177; 2.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Regional Strain of Apical 2 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.00 &#177; 3.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.07 &#177; 2.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.944</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apical 3 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Longitudinal Strain of ANTSEP wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−14.89 &#177; 4.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.76 &#177; 3.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Longitudinal Strain of POST wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−14.82 &#177; 5.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−21.08 &#177; 4.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Regional Strain of Apical 3 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−14.86 &#177; 3.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.92 &#177; 2.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.944</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Global Longitudinal Strain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.05 &#177; 3.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.22 &#177; 2.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.944</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Global Circumferential Strain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.88 &#177; 8.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−21.93 &#177; 5.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.294</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Global Radial Strain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.75 &#177; 18.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.09 &#177; 15.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.112</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.740</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>These findings can be explained by the fact that myocardial blood supply is segmental and microvascular dysfunction has a patchy distribution in the myocardial wall rather than a diffuse distribution. Thus, normally functioning segments with normal blood supply may compensate and easily obscure the effect imposed by the affected segments on the LV function. The routine 2-D echocardiographic measurements of LV functions assess the global hemodynamic function rather than the LV segmental, regional and global mechanical function in addition to being subjective, operator and load dependent that is why they are less sensitive. Doppler tissue imaging assesses LV mechanical function but it suffers major disadvantages as angle dependence, limited spatial resolution, and deformation analysis in one dimension [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>Using speckle tracking imaging based strain and strain rate, our study reported impaired systolic function proved by significantly lower global and regional</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of LV strain rate between studied groups</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Strain Rate</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Case Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Control Mean &#177; S.D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >t. test</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p. value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Apical 4 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Strain Rate of Septal wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.08 &#177; 0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0814</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.16 &#177; 0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.88 &#177; 0.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2631</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05 &#177; 0.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.640</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.328</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Strain Rate of Lateral wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.02 &#177; 0.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1849</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.17 &#177; 0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.88 &#177; 0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4618</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.01 &#177; 0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95 &#177; 0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.643</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.325</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Regional Strain Rate of Apical 4 chambers view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.05 &#177; 0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.816</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.17 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.88 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.765</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.386</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Apical 2 chambers view</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Strain Rate of Inferior wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.08 &#177; 0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2891</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.17 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9 &#177; 0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.712</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00 &#177; 0.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94 &#177; 0.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.647</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.201</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Strain Rate of Anterior wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.07 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.456</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.91 &#177; 0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0324</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.06 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99 &#177; 0.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.640</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.310</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Regional Strain Rate of Apical 2 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.07 &#177; 0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.816</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.91 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.765</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.386</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Apical 3 view</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Strain Rate of ANTSEP wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.05 &#177; 0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3792</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.19 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93 &#177; 0.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1844</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.04 &#177; 0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.641</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.318</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Strain Rate of Posterior wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.08 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4164</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.19 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95 &#177; 0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3368</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.02 &#177; 0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93 &#177; 0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.645</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.310</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Regional Strain Rate of Apical 3 view</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.06 &#177; 0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.36 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.816</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.19 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.94 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.765</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.386</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Global longitudinal Strain Rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.03 &#177; 0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.37 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.816</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18 &#177; 0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.91 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03 &#177; 0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94 &#177; 0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.765</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.386</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Global Circumferential Strain Rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.35 &#177; 0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.45 &#177; 0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.640</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.428</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.45 &#177; 0.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95 &#177; 0.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.997</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00 &#177; 0.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84 &#177; 0.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.685</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.201</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Global Radial Strain Rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.62 &#177; 0.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.36 &#177; 0.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.054</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.310</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.61 &#177; 0.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.41 &#177; 1.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.413</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A wave</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.08 &#177; 0.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.9 &#177; 1.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.232</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.116</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>*Significant, P-value ≤ 0.05 is considered significant, t = student test.</p><p>longitudinal strain and strain rate in patients with CSX compared to controls. These findings are concordant with the findings of Yagmur J. et al. They concluded</p><p>that in spite of normal 3D derived EF and tissue Doppler imaging derived systolic parameters, patients with syndrome CSX have a significantly impaired LV longitudinal myocardial systolic function using speckle tracking imaging [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>The same findings has been reported by Kaski J. Cwho used Doppler tissue imaging derived global longitudinal strain and strain rate to compare between 22 postmenopausal women with CSX and 20 healthy women. He found that patients with CSX showed a significantly lower value in GLS and SR compared to control group [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>The sub-endocardium is unique in its susceptibility to disease processes. Its unique myocardial fiber orientation, anatomical position and susceptibility to marked pressure variation render it the harbinger of future overt cardiac dysfunction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>Panting et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref6">6</xref>] used gadolinium cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with adenosine to study myocardial perfusion in patients with CSX. They provided supporting evidence for the presence of coronary microvascular dysfunction in CSX. They reported that there was a consistent evidence for an abnormality of myocardial perfusion limited to the sub-endocardial layer using this technique. These findings were compatible with the presence of sub-endocardial ischemia, despite the absence of LV wall motion abnormalities in a significant proportion of the patients with CSX.</p><p>Sun et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref15">15</xref>] also showed that there was impairment in LV function in the follow-up of patients with CSX who had an abnormal thallium scan.</p><p>The presence of subendocardial ischemia in patients with microvascular angina leads to subendocardial dysfunction that could potentially affect ventricular longitudinal functions. As ventricular subendocardial fibers are predominantly longitudinal in orientation, and early manifestations of cardiac abnormalities are usually observed in the subendocardial layer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>These facts can explain why patients with CSX have significantly lower both regional and global longitudinal strain denoting subclinical affection of left ventricular systolic function.</p><p>With respect to LV short axis function, our data show that radial and circumferential stain and systolic strain rate did not differ significantly in both groups and this can be explained as the circumferential fibers are predominantly in the mid layer of myocardium [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref16">16</xref>] . Circumferential function has previously been shown to be caused by the mid myocardial circular fibers and it became affected later after subendocardial fiber affection during sub-endocardial (non-transmural), infarction with preserved both radial and circumferential function among those patients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref18">18</xref>] .</p><p>Included patients were found to have diastolic dysfunction proved by Doppler tissue imaging and decreased global (longitudinal, circumferential and radial), E wave SR. Yazici, H. U., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref7">7</xref>] , Moreno, R., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref8">8</xref>] using pulsed wave Doppler tissue imaging proved that patient with CSX suffered from regional diastolic function and concluded that that patients with CSX have impaired regional LV diastolic function despite normal EF.</p><p>Diastolic dysfunction occurs early in the ischemic cascade. Nelson et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref19">19</xref>] used cardiac MRI to evaluate diastolic function in 20 women with CSX with preserved LV ejection fraction. Several studies identified multiple abnormalities in diastolic function using tissue tagging analysis. Specifically, patients had lower diastolic circumferential strain rate, lower peak rate of left ventricular untwisting, and longer time to peak filling rate and peak ventricular untwisting rate, as well as a trend toward longer time to peak diastolic circumferential strain rate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.89362-ref22">22</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>Speckle tracking echocardiography is a relatively new imaging modality that could provide early detection of subclinical mechanical myocardial affection. Speckle tracking echocardiographic derived global longitudinal strain and strain rate were found to be sensitive parameters for assessment of subclinical LV, both systolic and diastolic dysfunction in patients with CSX not detectable by conventional echocardiographic derived parameters. Being easy bedside noninvasive technique, it can be used for early detection of LV mechanical dysfunction and follow-up of patients with CSX.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>7. Limitations</title><p>Study included small number of patient. There is the need for further studies with larger number of patients to verify the results. Also we did not examine the results according to the deference in sex as syndrome X is more common in female sex.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Kamel, M., Emara, A., Montaser, S.S. and Said, M. (2018) Assessment of Left Ventricular Mechanical Function in Cardiac Syndrome X: Speckle Tracking Imaging Study. World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, 8, 557-568. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcd.2018.812055</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.89362-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cannon, R.O., Leon, M.B., Watson, R.M., Rosing, D.R. and Epstein, S.E. (1985) Chest Pain and “Normal” Coronary Arteries Role of Small Coronary Arteries. American Journal of Cardiology, 55, 50B60B.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cannon, R.O. and Epstein, S.E. (1988) “Microvascular Angina” as a Cause of Chest Pain with Angiographically Normal Coronary Arteries. American Journal of Cardiology, 61, 1338-1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(88)91180-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arthur, H.M., Pat Campbell, R.N., Harvey, P.J., McGillion, M., Oh, P., Woodburn, E. and Hodgson, C. (2012) Women, Cardiac Syndrome X, and Microvascular Heart Disease. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 28, S42-S49.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marroquin, O.C., Holubkov, R., Edmundowicz, D., Rickens, C., Pohost, G., Buchthal, S., et al. (2003) Heterogeneity of Microvascular Dysfunction in Women with Chest Pain Not Attributable to Coronary Artery Disease: Implications for Clinical Practice. American Heart Journal, 145, 628-635.  
https://doi.org/10.1067/mhj.2003.95</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zeiher, A.M., Krause, T., Schachinger, V., Minners, J. and Moser, E. (1995) Impaired Endothelium-Dependent Vasodilation of Coronary Resistance Vessels Is Associated with Exercise-Induced Myocardial Ischemia. Circulation, 91, 2345-2352. 
https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.91.9.2345</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Panting, J.R., Yang, G.Z., Grothues, F., Firmin, D.N., Collins, P., et al. (2002) Abnormal Subendocardial Perfusion in Cardiac Syndrome X Detected by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 1948-1953. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012369</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yazici, H.U., Sen, N., Tavil, Y., Hizal, F., Turfan, M., Poyraz, F., et al. (2009) Left Ventricular Functions in Patients with Cardiac Syndrome X: A Tissue Doppler Study. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, 9, 467-472.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Moreno, R., Garcia-Fernandez, M.A., Moreno, M., Puerta, P., Bermejo, J., Ortega, A., et al. (1999) Regional Diastolic Function in Microvascular Angina Studied by Pulsed-Wave Doppler Tissue Imaging. Echocardiography, 16, 239-244.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8175.1999.tb00808.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gorcsan III, J. and Tanaka, H. (2011) Echocardiographic Assessment of Myocardial Strain. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 58, 1401-1413.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.038</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mor-Avi, V., Lang, R.M., Badano, L.P., Belohlavek, M., Cardim, N.M., Derumeaux, G., et al. (2011) Current and Evolving Echocardiographic Techniques for the Quantitative Evaluation of Cardiac Mechanics: ASE/EAE Consensus Statement on Methodology and Indications Endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 24, 277-313.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2011.01.015</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maseri, A., Crea, F., Kaski, J.C. and Crake, T. (1991) Mechanisms of Angina Pectoris in Syndrome X. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 17, 499-506.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80122-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yagmur, J., Acikgoz, N., Cansel, M., Ermis, N., Karakus, Y. and Kurtoglu, E. (2016) Assessment of the Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Cardiac Syndrome X Using Speckle Tracking Echocardiography. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, 16, 419-423.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kaski, J.C. (2006) Cardiac Syndrome X in Women: The Role of Oestrogendeficiency. Heart, 92, iii5-iii9. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2005.070318</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stanton, T. and Marwick, T.H. (2010) Assessment of Subendocardial Structure and Function. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 3, 867-875.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.05.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sun, S.S., Huang, J.L., Tsai, S.C., Ho, Y.J. and Kao, C.H. (2001) The Higher Likelihood of Developing Cardiomegaly during Follow-Up in Patients with Syndrome X and Abnormal Thallium-201 Myocardial Perfusion SPECT. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, 17, 271-278.  
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011661300903</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Greenbaum, R.A., Ho, S.Y., Gibson, D.G., Becker, A.E. and Anderson, R.H. (1981) Left Ventricular Fibre Architecture in Man. British Heart Journal, 45, 248-263.  
https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.45.3.248</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, Y., Chan, A.K., Yu, C.M., et al. (2005) Strain Rate Imaging Differentiates Transmural from Non-Transmural Myocardial Infarction a Validation Study Using Delayed-Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 46, 864-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.054</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Garot, J., Bluemke, D.A., Osman, N.F., et al. (2000) Transmural Contractile Reserve after Reperfused Myocardial Infarction in Dogs. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 36, 2339-2346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00992-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nelson, M.D., Szczepaniak, L.S., Wei, J., Haftabaradaren, A., Bharadwaj, M., Sharif, B., Mehta, P., Zhang, X., Thomson, L.E., Berman, D.S., Li, D. and BaireyMerz, C.N. (2014) Diastolic Dysfunction in Women with Signs and Symptoms of Ischemia in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: A Hypothesis-Generating Study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, 7, 510-516.  
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.001714</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pai, V.M. and Axel, L. (2006) Advances in MRI Tagging Techniques for Determining Regional Myocardial Strain. Current Cardiology Reports, 8, 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-006-0011-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, J., Khoury, D.S., Yue, Y., Torre-Amione, G. and Nagueh, S.F. (2008) Preserved Left Ventricular Twist and Circumferential Deformation, But Depressed Longitudinal and Radial Deformation in Patients with Diastolic Heart Failure. European Heart Journal, 29, 1283-1289. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehn141</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.89362-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Flett, A.S., Hayward, M.P., Ashworth, M.T., Hansen, M.S., Taylor, A.M., Elliott, P.M., McGregor, C. and Moon, J.C. (2010) Equilibrium Contrast Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance for the Measurement of Diffuse Myocardial Fibrosis: Preliminary Validation in Humans. Circulation, 122, 138-144.  
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.930636</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>