OBJECTIVE: To compare global Left Ventricular (LV) systolic function assessment by 16-detector row Computed Tomography (MDCT) with Two-Dimensional Standard Echocardiography (2DSE) in a routine cardiology practice setting and to ascertain the degree of correlation between LV volumes and measurements obtained by 2DSE with those measured by MDCT. METHODS: In 52 patients with suspected coronary artery disease, a contrast enhanced MDCT study was performed using retrospective gating without dose modulation for better endocardial delineation. Eight phases of the cardiac cycle were analyzed to identify the end-diastolic and end-systolic phases. 2DSE was performed on the same day. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes and ejection fraction were calculated in 4-chamber, 2-chamber and biplane (average of the two) views. Endocardial tracing was used to measure ventricular volumes by area length method for CT and Simpson's method for echocardiography. RESULTS: On MDCT, mean LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in 4-chamber, 2-chamber and biplane views were 58.4 +/- 12, 59.3 +/- 12 and 59.7 +/- 12% respectively. On 2DSE, mean LVEF in 4-chamber, 2-chamber and biplane views were 58 +/- 14, 57 +/- 16 and 58 +/- 13% respectively. LVEF correlated best using the biplane views (r = 0.59 and P < 0.01) compared to 2-chamber (r = 0.57 and P < 0.01) and 4-chamber views (r = 0.32 and P = 0.02). Biplane measurement by these two techniques correlated well for LV volumes in both diastole (r = 0.69 and P < 0.01) and systole (r = 0.73 and P < 0.01), although MDCT consistently gave higher values. CONCLUSIONS: MDCT can be a useful tool to measure LVEF while patients are undergoing CT coronary angiography.
OBJECTIVE: To compare global Left Ventricular (LV) systolic function assessment by 16-detector row Computed Tomography (MDCT) with Two-Dimensional Standard Echocardiography (2DSE) in a routine cardiology practice setting and to ascertain the degree of correlation between LV volumes and measurements obtained by 2DSE with those measured by MDCT. METHODS: In 52 patients with suspected coronary artery disease, a contrast enhanced MDCT study was performed using retrospective gating without dose modulation for better endocardial delineation. Eight phases of the cardiac cycle were analyzed to identify the end-diastolic and end-systolic phases. 2DSE was performed on the same day. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes and ejection fraction were calculated in 4-chamber, 2-chamber and biplane (average of the two) views. Endocardial tracing was used to measure ventricular volumes by area length method for CT and Simpson's method for echocardiography. RESULTS: On MDCT, mean LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in 4-chamber, 2-chamber and biplane views were 58.4 +/- 12, 59.3 +/- 12 and 59.7 +/- 12% respectively. On 2DSE, mean LVEF in 4-chamber, 2-chamber and biplane views were 58 +/- 14, 57 +/- 16 and 58 +/- 13% respectively. LVEF correlated best using the biplane views (r = 0.59 and P < 0.01) compared to 2-chamber (r = 0.57 and P < 0.01) and 4-chamber views (r = 0.32 and P = 0.02). Biplane measurement by these two techniques correlated well for LV volumes in both diastole (r = 0.69 and P < 0.01) and systole (r = 0.73 and P < 0.01), although MDCT consistently gave higher values. CONCLUSIONS: MDCT can be a useful tool to measure LVEF while patients are undergoing CT coronary angiography.
Authors: Liesbeth P Salm; Joanne D Schuijf; Albert de Roos; Hildo J Lamb; Hubert W Vliegen; J Wouter Jukema; Raoul Joemai; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2005-08-10
Authors: H J Lamb; J Doornbos; E A van der Velde; M C Kruit; J H Reiber; A de Roos Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: R C Semelka; E Tomei; S Wagner; J Mayo; G Caputo; M O'Sullivan; W W Parmley; K Chatterjee; C Wolfe; C B Higgins Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Sandra S Halliburton; Martin Petersilka; Paulo R Schvartzman; Nancy Obuchowski; Richard D White Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: J R Corbett; G J Dehmer; S E Lewis; W Woodward; E Henderson; R W Parkey; C G Blomqvist; J T Willerson Journal: Circulation Date: 1981-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Palumbo; E Maffei; C Martini; G Messalli; S Seitun; R Malagò; A Aldrovandi; E Emiliano; A Cuttone; A Weustink; N Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: R Malagò; D Tavella; W Mantovani; M D'Onofrio; G Caliari; A Pezzato; L Nicolì; P Benussi; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; G Messalli; A Palumbo; C Martini; S Seitun; A Aldrovandi; A Cuttone; E Emiliano; R Malagò; A Weustink; N Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Michael Rose; Bernard Rubal; Edward Hulten; Jennifer N Slim; Kevin Steel; James L Furgerson; Todd C Villines; Ahmad M Slim Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2014-02-14