Flow propagation velocity is not a simple index of diastolic function in early filling. A comparative study of early diastolic strain rate and strain rate propagation, flow and flow propagation in normal and reduced diastolic function

BACKGROUND: Strain Rate Imaging shows the filling phases of the left ventricle to consist of a wave of myocardial stretching, propagating from base to apex. The propagation velocity of the strain rate wave is reduced in delayed relaxation. This study examined the relation between the propagation velocity of strain rate in the myocardium and the propagation velocity of flow during early filling. METHODS: 12 normal subjects and 13 patients with treated hypertension and normal systolic function were studied. Patients and controls differed significantly in diastolic early mitral flow measurements, peak early diastolic tissue velocity and peak early diastolic strain rate, showing delayed relaxation in the patient group. There were no significant differences in EF or diastolic diameter. RESULTS: Strain rate propagation velocity was reduced in the patient group while flow propagation velocity was increased. There was a negative correlation (R = -0.57) between strain rate propagation and deceleration time of the mitral flow E-wave (R = -0.51) and between strain rate propagation and flow propagation velocity and there was a positive correlation (R = 0.67) between the ratio between peak mitral flow velocity / strain rate propagation velocity and flow propagation velocity. CONCLUSION: The present study shows strain rate propagation to be a measure of filling time, but flow propagation to be a function of both flow velocity and strain rate propagation. Thus flow propagation is not a simple index of diastolic function in delayed relaxation

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program