H K Baik1, M J Budoff, K L Lane, H Bakhsheshi, B H Brundage. 1. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and The Saint John's Cardiovascular Research Center, Torrance, California 90502, USA. howardbaik@earthlink.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative determination of ejection fraction is predicated on precise measurement of end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes of the left ventricle. Contrast enhanced electron beam tomography (EBT), with excellent temporal and spatial resolution, has the potential for highly accurate measures of ejection fraction. METHODS: EBT protocol used a short axis scan of the left ventricle (8-12 levels, apex to base) during infusion of iodinated contrast. To assess the accuracy of the measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), we compared EBT with first-pass radionuclide angiography (RNA) and cine angiography (CINE). RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (26 men and 15 women) underwent all three tests within 1 week. Resting ejection fraction using each modality was assessed in a linear regression model to assess inter-test correlation with the other two modalities. Correlation between CINE and EBT was high (r = 0.90, intercept 4.67, p < 0.001). Similarly, correlation of CINE and RNA (r = 0.87, intercept -5.48, p < 0.001) and between EBT and RNA (r = 0.87, intercept -4.6, p < 0.001) were high. In a subset of those patients with LVEF < or = 40%, correlation was consistently high between EBT and CINE. However, correlations were poor for the comparisons between RNA and CINE (r = 0.40), and between the RNA and EBT (r = 0.47). The mean differences of measured ejection fractions between each of the imaging modality were small. However, there was only modest agreement between each of the comparisons as measured using 95% confidence interval (CI) on Bland-Altman plots. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the LVEF results are comparable among EBT, RNA, and CINE and can be used interchangeably to assess ventricular function for LVEF > 40%. For LVEF < or = 40%, we demonstrated some disparate results between cine angiography and RNA and between EBT and RNA, indicating that CINE or EBT may provide more accurate assessment.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative determination of ejection fraction is predicated on precise measurement of end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes of the left ventricle. Contrast enhanced electron beam tomography (EBT), with excellent temporal and spatial resolution, has the potential for highly accurate measures of ejection fraction. METHODS: EBT protocol used a short axis scan of the left ventricle (8-12 levels, apex to base) during infusion of iodinated contrast. To assess the accuracy of the measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), we compared EBT with first-pass radionuclide angiography (RNA) and cine angiography (CINE). RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (26 men and 15 women) underwent all three tests within 1 week. Resting ejection fraction using each modality was assessed in a linear regression model to assess inter-test correlation with the other two modalities. Correlation between CINE and EBT was high (r = 0.90, intercept 4.67, p < 0.001). Similarly, correlation of CINE and RNA (r = 0.87, intercept -5.48, p < 0.001) and between EBT and RNA (r = 0.87, intercept -4.6, p < 0.001) were high. In a subset of those patients with LVEF < or = 40%, correlation was consistently high between EBT and CINE. However, correlations were poor for the comparisons between RNA and CINE (r = 0.40), and between the RNA and EBT (r = 0.47). The mean differences of measured ejection fractions between each of the imaging modality were small. However, there was only modest agreement between each of the comparisons as measured using 95% confidence interval (CI) on Bland-Altman plots. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the LVEF results are comparable among EBT, RNA, and CINE and can be used interchangeably to assess ventricular function for LVEF > 40%. For LVEF < or = 40%, we demonstrated some disparate results between cine angiography and RNA and between EBT and RNA, indicating that CINE or EBT may provide more accurate assessment.
Authors: M Gottsauner-Wolf; J Schedlmayer-Duit; G Porenta; M Gwechenberger; K Huber; D Glogar; P Probst; H Sochor Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1996-12
Authors: J A Rumberger; T Behrenbeck; M R Bell; J F Breen; D L Johnston; D R Holmes; M Enriquez-Sarano Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: M J Budoff; R Gillespie; D Georgiou; K A Narahara; W J French; I Mena; B H Brundage Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1998-03-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: M J Budoff; D Georgiou; A Brody; A S Agatston; J Kennedy; C Wolfkiel; W Stanford; P Shields; R J Lewis; W R Janowitz; S Rich; B H Brundage Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-03-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A J Feiring; J A Rumberger; S J Reiter; S M Collins; D J Skorton; M Rees; M L Marcus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1988-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Ernst Klotz; Anja Hennemuth; Bettina Jung; Ralf Koos; Joachim E Wildberger; Rolf W Günther Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher Lane; Paul Dorian; Nina Ghosh; Maria Radina; Suzan O'Donnell; Kevin Thorpe; Iqwal Mangat; Victoria Korley; Arnold Pinter Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.223