FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1967609979> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1967609979 abstract "HomeStrokeVol. 39, No. 11Detection of Right-to-Left Shunt With Transcranial Doppler Is Affected by Body-Positioning Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBDetection of Right-to-Left Shunt With Transcranial Doppler Is Affected by Body-Positioning Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, FESO Vijay K. Sharma, MD Andrei V. Alexandrov, MD Georgios TsivgoulisGeorgios Tsivgoulis Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, Birmingham, Ala, USA, Department of Neurology, University of Thrace School of Medicine, Alexandroupolis, Greece Search for more papers by this author Vijay K. SharmaVijay K. Sharma Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore Search for more papers by this author Andrei V. AlexandrovAndrei V. Alexandrov Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, Birmingham, Ala, USA Search for more papers by this author Originally published2 Oct 2008https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.533802Stroke. 2008;39:e184Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: October 2, 2008: Previous Version 1 To the Editor:We read with great interest the recent study by Caputi et al regarding the postural dependency of right-to-left shunt (RLS) detection using contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (TCD).1 After using TCD to detect the bubble-load in 2 different body positions (recumbent and standing) in consecutive RLS-positive patients (confirmed by transthoracic echocardiogram), the authors concluded that the amount of bubbles detected was dependent on body position, with 42% of the study population exhibiting almost a 3-fold increase in the yield of microbubbles in the standing compared to the supine position.1Our group has previously investigated whether body-positioning may affect the sensitivity of TCD in detecting and grading RLS in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attacks that were referred to our neurosonology laboratory. As Caputi and colleagues acknowledge, we documented remarkably similar results to their findings.2 More specifically, in our study the change of body-positioning from the supine (which is the currently recommended position for TCD-screening for RLS according to the International Consensus Criteria developed in Venice3) to sitting upright position increased substantially the microbubble count (from a median of 20 in the supine to a median of 72 in the sitting position) in 42% of our study population. Moreover, we failed to document any changes in blood pressure and heart rate levels during TCD-testing in different body positions, whereas changes in body position followed by additional agitated saline injections were well-tolerated with no adverse events. In addition, if the initial supine Valsalva-aided contrast TCD-testing was negative, all subsequent positions/injections were also negative for RLS. In view of the limited available data as regards the effect of body-positioning on the yield of TCD in screening and grading RLS,1–5 Caputi et al may consider reporting if they recorded any posture-related changes in blood pressure and heart rate or any orthostastic symptoms during the application of their extended TCD protocol. Furthermore, it would be interesting if they were able to detect any cases with negative TCD-testing for RLS in the recumbent position, who were subsequently positive in the standing position. These data may provide useful information concerning whether additional body positions also increase the sensitivity of TCD for detecting RLS in addition to increasing the number of detected microbubbles that affects substantially the grading of the degree of RLS.Finally, we would like to underline that the findings of those 2 recent studies1,2 may have certain clinical applications (avoiding paradoxical embolism during surgery in the sitting position, diagnosing more reliably paradoxical embolism in patients with cryptogenic stroke, screening more effectively for the largely underdiagnosed platypnea orthodeoxia syndrome) as Caputi et al have insightfully noted in the discussion of their results. Additionally, we want to highlight the importance of correctly grading the degree of RLS using contrast TCD, because the studies of Serena et al6 and Anzola et al7 have shown that quantification of RLS on the basis of microbubble count can provide useful information for the likelihood of prevalent ischemic stroke or for the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke respectively. After taking into account the findings of the former 2 studies1,2 and recent reports8,9 that the Spencer-Logarithmic-Scale TCD criteria may be more sensitive and specific for diagnosing larger or functional patent foramen ovale, we propose that a prospective multicenter study of testing protocols with different body positions and a revision of commonly accepted procedural and diagnostic criteria to optimize RLS screening with TCD may be warranted.DisclosuresNone.1 Caputi L, Carriero LM, Parati EA, Onorato E, Casilli F, Berti M, Angola GP. Postural dependency of right to left shunt: role of contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler and its potential clinical implications. Stroke. 2008; 39: 2380–2381.LinkGoogle Scholar2 Lao AY, Sharma VK, Tsivgoulis G, Malkoff MD, Alexandrov AV, Frey JL. Effect of body positioning during transcranial Doppler detection of right-to-left shunts. Eur J Neurol. 2007; 14: 1035–1039.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Jauss M, Zanette E. Detection of right to left shunt with ultrasound contrast agent and transcranial Doppler sonography. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2000; 10: 490–496.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Schwarze JJ, Sander D, Kukla C, Wittich I, Babikian VL, Klingelhofer J. Methodological parameters influence the detection of right to left shunts by contrast transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. Stroke. 1999; 30: 1234–1239.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Telman G, Kouperberg E, Sprecher E, Yarnitsky D. The position of the patients in the diagnosis of patent foramen ovale by transcranial Doppler. J Neuroimaging. 2003; 13: 356–358.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Serena J, Segura T, Perez-Ayuso MJ, Bassaganyas J, Molins A, Davalos A. The need to quantify right to left shunt in acute ischemic stroke: a case control study. Stroke. 1998; 29: 1322–1328.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Anzola GP, Zavarize P, Morandi E, Rozzini L, Parrinello G. Transcranial Doppler and risk of recurrence in patients with stroke and patent foramen ovale. Eur J Neurol. 2003; 10: 129–135.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Spencer MP, Moehring MA, Jesurum J, Gray WA, Olsen JV, Reisman M. Power M-mode transcranial Doppler for diagnosis of patent foramen ovale and assessing transcatheter closure. J. Neuroimaging. 2004; 14: 342–349.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Lao AY, Sharma VK, Tsivgoulis G, Frey JL, Malkoff MD, Navarro JC, Alexandrov AV. Detection of right-to-left shunts: comparison between the International Consensus and Spencer Criteria. J. Neuroimaging. 2007;e-pub ahead of print.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails November 2008Vol 39, Issue 11 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.533802PMID: 18832742 Originally publishedOctober 2, 2008 PDF download Advertisement" @default.
• W1967609979 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1967609979 creator A5005936001 @default.
• W1967609979 creator A5010662353 @default.
• W1967609979 creator A5031431276 @default.
• W1967609979 date "2008-11-01" @default.
• W1967609979 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1967609979 title "Detection of Right-to-Left Shunt With Transcranial Doppler Is Affected by Body-Positioning" @default.
• W1967609979 cites W1968651919 @default.
• W1967609979 cites W1971196515 @default.
• W1967609979 cites W1976030102 @default.
• W1967609979 cites W2007491393 @default.
• W1967609979 cites W2079034169 @default.
• W1967609979 cites W2137236458 @default.
• W1967609979 cites W4243619653 @default.
• W1967609979 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.108.533802" @default.
• W1967609979 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18832742" @default.
• W1967609979 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W1967609979 type Work @default.
• W1967609979 sameAs 1967609979 @default.
• W1967609979 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1967609979 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1967609979 hasAuthorship W1967609979A5005936001 @default.
• W1967609979 hasAuthorship W1967609979A5010662353 @default.
• W1967609979 hasAuthorship W1967609979A5031431276 @default.
• W1967609979 hasBestOaLocation W19676099791 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C1276947 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C142757262 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C191616109 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C2776893843 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C2776954272 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C2780645631 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C2780813298 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C2780968331 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C121332964 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C126838900 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C127413603 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C1276947 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C142757262 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C164705383 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C191616109 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C2776893843 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C2776954272 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C2780645631 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C2780813298 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C2780968331 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C71924100 @default.
• W1967609979 hasConceptScore W1967609979C78519656 @default.
• W1967609979 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W1967609979 hasLocation W19676099791 @default.
• W1967609979 hasLocation W19676099792 @default.
• W1967609979 hasOpenAccess W1967609979 @default.
• W1967609979 hasPrimaryLocation W19676099791 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W1601795874 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W1992496088 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2004262819 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2046281126 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2155853471 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2281217657 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2314287671 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2336580957 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2345866873 @default.
• W1967609979 hasRelatedWork W2774267568 @default.
• W1967609979 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W1967609979 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1967609979 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1967609979 magId "1967609979" @default.
• W1967609979 workType "article" @default.