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).