Importance of imaging method over imaging modality in noninvasive determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction - Assessment by two- and three-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging
Importance of imaging method over imaging modality in noninvasive determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction - Assessment by two- and three-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00551-3
复制
发表时间：
2000-02-01
影响因子：
24
通讯作者：
Manning, WJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chuang, ML;Hibberd, MG;Manning, WJ
本研究旨在确定双平面和容积超声心动图与磁共振成像（MRI）策略之间的一致性及其对根据左心室（LV）射血分数（EF）（LVEF）进行患者分类的影响。适用于左室容量和LVEF的连续评价。尽管体积方法具有准确性和可重复性，但定量双平面方法仍被广泛使用，因为它们可以最大限度地减少扫描和分析时间。方法通过双平面和体积（心脏短轴堆叠）电影MRT以及双平面和体积（三维）经胸超声心动图对35名成年受试者（包括25名扩张型心肌病患者）进行了评估。左心室容积、LVEF和LV功能分类（LVEF大于或等于55%，>35%至0.05）之间的任何定量LVEF策略。2例患者（8%）的容积MRI和容积超声心动图在单一功能类别上存在差异。当比较双平面和容积方法时，6 - 11例患者（24%-44%）存在差异。双平面MRI与双平面超声心动图比较，10例患者（40%）功能状态改变;结论容积MRT和容积超声心动图测量左室容积和LVEF的结果一致，当用于根据收缩压分级对扩张型心肌病患者进行分层时，结果相似。功能双平面和容积方法之间的一致性较差，双平面方法之间的一致性更差，根据LVEF将40%的患者分配到不同的类别。当测量LV容积和收缩功能时，成像方法（容积或双平面）的选择比成像方式（超声心动图或MRI）的选择对结果的影响更大。（J Am Coil Cardiol 2000;35：477-84）（C）2000年由美国心脏病学会发布。
OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the concordance between biplane and volumetric echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging: (MRI) strategics and their impact on the classification of patients according to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) (LVEF).BACKGROUND Transthoracic echocardiography and MRI are noninvasive imaging modalities well. suited for serial evaluation of LV volume and LVEF. Despite the accuracy and reproducibility of volumetric methods, quantitative biplane methods are commonly used, as they minimize both scanning and analysis times.METHODS Thirty-five adult subjects, including 25 patients with dilated cardiomyopathies, were evaluated by biplane and volumetric (cardiac short-axis stack) cine MRT and by biplane and volumetric (three-dimensional) transthoracic echocardiography. Left ventricular volume, LVEF and LV function categories (LVEF greater than or equal to 55%, >35% to 0.05) between any of the strategies for quantitative LVEF. Volumetric MRI and volumetric echocardiography differed by a single functional category for 2 patients (8%). Six to 11 patients (24% to 44%) differed when comparing biplane and volumetric methods. Ten patients (40%) changed their functional status when biplane MRI and biplane echocardiography were compared; this comparison also revealed the greatest mean absolute difference in estimates of EF for those subjects whose EF functional category had changed.CONCLUSIONS Volumetric MRT and volumetric echocardiographic measures of LV volume and LVEF agree well and give similar results when used to stratify patients with dilated cardiomyopathy according to systolic function. Agreement is poor between biplane and volumetric methods and worse between biplane methods, which assigned 40% of patients to different categories according to LVEF. The choice of imaging method (volumetric or biplane) has a greater impact on the results than does the choice of imaging modality (echocardiography or MRI) when measuring LV volume and systolic function. (J Am Coil Cardiol 2000;35:477-84) (C) 2000 by the American College of Cardiology.