Cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography for the assessment of cardiac volumes and regional function after myocardial infarction: an intrasubject comparison using simultaneous intrasubject recordings.
Cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography for the assessment of cardiac volumes and regional function after myocardial infarction: an intrasubject comparison using simultaneous intrasubject recordings.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1476-7120-7-38
复制
发表时间：
2009-08-18
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Anderson JL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gardner BI;Bingham SE;Allen MR;Blatter DD;Anderson JL
虽然超声心动图通常用于评估心肌梗死后的心功能，但CMR可能提供更准确的功能评估，但尚未与回声进行充分的比较。主要研究目的是比较近期心肌梗死（MI）患者（pts）由心脏磁共振（CMR）和超声心动图（echo）测定的左心室容积和整体和局部功能指标。为了比较CMR和超声，连续47例（患者70%为男性，平均年龄= 66±11岁）在6周前出现MI >并计划进行影像学评估，并在60分钟内分别进行超声和CMR检查。读者对信息视而不见。使用Pearson相关系数、配对t检验和卡方检验比较CMR和回声测量。进一步比较患者与30名正常对照的CMR，以及患者与已公布的回声正常范围。CMR和回声测量的体积和功能之间的相关性中等（r = 0.54至0.75，均p < 0.001），但在绝对测量中存在较大的系统性差异。回声低估左室（LV）容积（舒张末期69 ml，收缩末期35 ml，均p < 0.001），卒中容积（34 ml, p < 0.001）和左室射血分数（LVEF）（4个百分点，p = 0.02）。CMR对节段性壁运动异常的检测更为敏感（p < 0.001）。与正常对照的CMR比较证实了心肌梗死后左室容积增加，LVEF减少，并保留了卒中容积。心肌梗死后的受试者内部比较发现，CMR和回声测量的容积、LVEF和壁运动异常之间存在较大的系统性差异，尽管存在适度的模态间相关性，但回声低估了每个指标。CMR也为心肌梗死后的节段功能提供了更好的检测和量化。个体患者的左室功能的系列研究应使用相同的模式。
Although echocardiography is commonly used to evaluate cardiac function after MI, CMR may provide more accurate functional assessment but has not been adequately compared with echo. The primary study objective was to compare metrics of left ventricular volumes and global and regional function determined by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and echocardiography (echo) in patients (pts) with recent myocardial infarction (MI). To compare CMR with echo, 47 consecutive patients (pts 70% male; mean age = 66 ± 11 years) with MI >6 wks previously and scheduled for imaging evaluation were studied by both echo and CMR within 60 min of each other. Readers were blinded to pt information. Pearson's correlation coefficient, paired t-tests, and chi-square tests were used to compare CMR and echo measures. Further comparisons were made between pts and 30 normal controls for CMR and between pts and published normal ranges for echo. Measures of volume and function correlated moderately well between CMR and echo (r = 0.54 to 0.75, all p < 0.001), but large and systematic differences were noted in absolute measurements. Echo underestimated left ventricular (LV) volumes (by 69 ml for end-diastolic, 35 ml for end-systolic volume, both p < 0.001), stroke volume (by 34 ml, p < 0.001), and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (by 4 percentage point, p = 0.02). CMR was much more sensitive to detection of segmental wall motion abnormalities (p < 0.001). CMR comparisons with normal controls confirmed an increase in LV volumes, a decrease in LVEF, and preservation of stroke volume after MI. This intra subject comparison after MI found large, systematic differences between CMR and echo measures of volumes, LVEF, and wall motion abnormality despite moderate inter-modality correlations, with echo underestimating each metric. CMR also provided superior detection and quantification of segmental function after MI. Serial studies of LV function in individual patients should use the same modality.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/s0735-1097(83)80278-2
发表时间：
1983-01-01
影响因子：
24
作者：
GORDON, EP;SCHNITTGER, I;POPP, RL
通讯作者：
POPP, RL
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Anderson, JL;Horne, BD;Pennell, DJ
通讯作者：
Pennell, DJ
影响因子：
0.6
作者：
ERBEL, R;SCHWEIZER, P;EFFERT, S
通讯作者：
EFFERT, S
影响因子：
37.8
作者：
Cerqueira, MD;Weissman, NJ;Verani, MS
通讯作者：
Verani, MS
影响因子：
5
作者：
Natori, Shunsuke;Lai, Shenghan;Bluemke, David A.
通讯作者：
Bluemke, David A.