BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) mass and ejection fraction are of diagnostic and therapeutic importance in patients with systolic dysfunction. Cardiac MRI (CMR) has been proposed as a standard for these indices. Prior studies have variably included papillary muscles and trabeculae in either intracavitary or myocardial volumes. Quantitative effects and clinical implications of this methodological difference in patients with systolic dysfunction are unknown. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients with known systolic dysfunction (EF<40%) underwent CMR. LV volumes were determined using previously established methods: Method 1 included papillary muscles and trabeculae in cavity volume, method 2 included these in myocardial volume. Both methods were used for each patient with tracings superimposed to isolate papillary/trabecular volume and insure consistency of other endocardial contours. Readers applied methods in random order blinded to clinical findings and results of the other method. RESULTS: LV mass differed substantially by method (p<0.001) with absolute difference of 16.6%. Ejection fraction differed by 3 points (p<0.001) with absolute differences of > or =5 points in 16% of patients. Mean differences in LV mass and ejection fraction were produced by consistent methodological differences on a per-patient basis. Methodology used produced differences in patients meeting established criteria for LV hypertrophy (28% vs. 60%, p<0.001) and ICD implantation (64% vs. 48%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LV mass and ejection fraction differ significantly between commonly employed CMR methods. Alternative inclusion of papillary muscles and trabeculae in either cavity or myocardial volumes produces significant differences in clinical and therapeutic indices that can affect management of patients with advanced systolic dysfunction.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) mass and ejection fraction are of diagnostic and therapeutic importance in patients with systolic dysfunction. Cardiac MRI (CMR) has been proposed as a standard for these indices. Prior studies have variably included papillary muscles and trabeculae in either intracavitary or myocardial volumes. Quantitative effects and clinical implications of this methodological difference in patients with systolic dysfunction are unknown. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients with known systolic dysfunction (EF<40%) underwent CMR. LV volumes were determined using previously established methods: Method 1 included papillary muscles and trabeculae in cavity volume, method 2 included these in myocardial volume. Both methods were used for each patient with tracings superimposed to isolate papillary/trabecular volume and insure consistency of other endocardial contours. Readers applied methods in random order blinded to clinical findings and results of the other method. RESULTS: LV mass differed substantially by method (p<0.001) with absolute difference of 16.6%. Ejection fraction differed by 3 points (p<0.001) with absolute differences of > or =5 points in 16% of patients. Mean differences in LV mass and ejection fraction were produced by consistent methodological differences on a per-patient basis. Methodology used produced differences in patients meeting established criteria for LV hypertrophy (28% vs. 60%, p<0.001) and ICD implantation (64% vs. 48%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LV mass and ejection fraction differ significantly between commonly employed CMR methods. Alternative inclusion of papillary muscles and trabeculae in either cavity or myocardial volumes produces significant differences in clinical and therapeutic indices that can affect management of patients with advanced systolic dysfunction.
Authors: Mariëlle C van de Veerdonk; Sophie A Dusoswa; J Tim Marcus; Harm-Jan Bogaard; Onno Spruijt; Taco Kind; Nico Westerhof; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Michael L Chuang; Philimon Gona; Gilion L T F Hautvast; Carol J Salton; Susan J Blease; Susan B Yeon; Marcel Breeuwer; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-11
Authors: Karolien Jaspers; Hendrik G Freling; Kees van Wijk; Elisabeth I Romijn; Marcel J W Greuter; Tineke P Willems Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-09-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Maria Angela Losi; Massimo Imbriaco; Grazia Canciello; Filomena Pacelli; Carlo Di Nardo; Raffaella Lombardi; Raffaele Izzo; Costantino Mancusi; Andrea Ponsiglione; Serena Dell'Aversana; Alberto Cuocolo; Giovanni de Simone; Bruno Trimarco; Emanuele Barbato Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Ibolya Csecs; Csilla Czimbalmos; Ferenc Imre Suhai; Róbert Mikle; Arash Mirzahosseini; Zsófia Dohy; Andrea Szűcs; Anna Réka Kiss; Tamás Simor; Attila Tóth; Béla Merkely; Hajnalka Vágó Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Geetha Rayarao; Robert W W Biederman; Ronald B Williams; June A Yamrozik; Richard Lombardi; Mark Doyle Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-02-14
Authors: Abiola O Dele-Michael; Kana Fujikura; Richard B Devereux; Fahmida Islam; Ingrid Hriljac; Sean R Wilson; Fay Lin; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Francisco Contijoch; Walter R T Witschey; Kelly Rogers; Joseph Gorman; Robert C Gorman; Victor Ferrari; Yuchi Han Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.813