A comparison of left ventricular mass between two-dimensional echocardiography, using fundamental and tissue harmonic imaging, and cardiac MRI in patients with hypertension
A comparison of left ventricular mass between two-dimensional echocardiography, using fundamental and tissue harmonic imaging, and cardiac MRI in patients with hypertension
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.09.015
复制
发表时间：
2004-11-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Sivananthan, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alfakih, K;Bloomer, T;Sivananthan, M
目的：比较二维超声心动图用截断椭圆(TE)和面积长度(AL)两种不同的计算方法在基频和组织谐波成像频率下测量的左心室质量(LVM)，并与目前的金标准心脏磁共振成像(MRI)测量的LVM进行比较。MRI采用快速梯度回波(TGE)脉冲序列。材料和方法：研究对象为32例有高血压病史的受试者。对于所有四种不同的超声心动图方法以及心脏MRI方法，采集图像、追踪轮廓并计算LVM。计算了观察者内部的变异性。将四种不同的超声心动图方法与使用Bland和Altman描述的方法的心脏MRI进行比较。结果：25名受试者有足够的配对数据集。心脏MRI测得的平均LVm为162+/-55g，四种不同的超声心动图方法分别为：基波AL 165+/-55g，谐波AL 168+/-53g，基波TE 148+/-50g，谐波TE 149+/-45g.心脏MRI方法的观察者内变异为2.3+/-9.2g，四种不同超声心动图方法为：基波TE 0.4+/-26.8g，基础AL 0.6+/-27.0g，谐波TE 6.7+/-21.8g，谐波AL 6.4+/-22.9g，AL法的平均LVm与心脏MRI技术最接近，而TE低估了LVm。与心脏MRI技术相比，所有2D超声心动图方法的95%的符合率都是一致的。结论：二维超声心动图LVm测量的观察者内部变异性，以及与黄金标准(心脏MRI)相比的广泛一致性，足以使2D超声心动图对单个患者或一小群受试者的LVm进行连续估计是不可靠的。(C)2003爱思唯尔爱尔兰有限公司。保留所有权利。
Purpose: To compare left ventricular mass (LVM) as measured by two-dimensional (21)) echocardiography using two different calculation methods: truncated ellipse (TE) and area length (AL), in both fundamental and tissue harmonic imaging frequencies, to LVM as measured by, the cur-rent gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Turbo gradient echo (TGE) pulse sequence was utilized for MRI. Materials and methods: Thirty-two subjects with history of hypertension were recruited. The images were acquired, contours were traced and the LVM was calculated for all four different echocardiography methods as well as for the cardiac MRI method. The intra-observer variabilities were calculated. The four different echocardiography methods were compared to cardiac MRI using the method described by Bland and Altman. Results: Twenty-five subjects had adequate paired data sets. The mean LVM as measured by cardiac MRI was 162 +/- 55 g and for the four different echocardiography methods were: fundamental AL 165 +/- 55 g, harmonic AL 168 +/- 53 g, fundamental TE 148 +/- 50 g, harmonic TE 149 +/- 45 g. The intra-observer variability for cardiac MRI method, expressed as bias I standard deviation of the difference (S.D.D.), was 2.3 +/- 9.2 g and for the four different echocardiography methods were: fundamental TE 0.4 +/- 26.8 g, fundamental AL 0.6 +/- 27.0 g, harmonic TE 6.7 +/- 21.8 g, harmonic AL 6.4 +/- 22.9 g. The mean LVM for the AL method was closest to the cardiac MRI technique, while TE underestimated LVM. The 95% limits of agreement were consistently wide for all the 2D echocardiography modalities when compared with the cardiac MRI technique. Conclusion: The intra-observer variability in measurements of 2D echocardiographic LVM, together with the wide limits of agreement when compared to the gold standard (cardiac MRI) are sufficiently large to make serial estimates of LVM, of single patients or small groups of subjects, by 2D echocardiography, unreliable. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.