Table 3:The value of detecting LSr parameters in STE for
diagnosing viable myocardium.
Further parallel diagnostic testing was performed on the LS and LSr
parameters at rest. In the DM group, the sensitivity, specificity, and
accuracy were found to be 84.62%, 45.45%, and 70.49%, respectively.
In the non-DM group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were
66.53%, 63.30%, and 65.55%, respectively. The DM group showed higher
sensitivity and accuracy compared to the non-DM group, with
statistically significant differences. However, the DM group had lower
specificity compared to the non-DM group, also with statistically
significant differences (Table 4 and 6).Parallel diagnostic testing was
also conducted on the LS and LSr parameters under stress conditions. In
the DM group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.31%,
60.70%, and 84.15%, respectively. In the non-DM group, the
sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.27%, 81.65%, and
83.47%, respectively (Table 5 and 6). The DM group exhibited higher
sensitivity and accuracy compared to the non-DM group, with
statistically significant differences. However, the DM group had lower
specificity compared to the non-DM group, also with statistically
significant differences. The accuracy was higher in the DM group, but
the difference was not statistically significant.
In the DM group, STE demonstrated higher sensitivity, specificity, and
accuracy for detecting viable myocardium under stress conditions
compared to rest. Additionally, STE at rest showed higher sensitivity
and accuracy compared to the semi-quantitative visual assessment of
LDDSE, with statistically significant differences. The specificity of
STE at rest was higher than that of LDDSE, but the difference was not
statistically significant. In the non-DM group, STE at stress showed
higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting viable
myocardium compared to rest, with statistically significant differences.
STE at rest also exhibited higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy
compared to LDDSE, with statistically significant differences (Table 6).