Literature DB >> 18231876

MRI comparison of quantitative left ventricular structure, function and measurement reproducibility in patient cohorts with a range of clinically distinct cardiac conditions.

Stephen J Gandy1, Shelley A Waugh, R Stephen Nicholas, Narasimharaj Rajendra, Patricia Martin, J Graeme Houston.   

Abstract

AIM: Quantitative MRI assessments of cardiac structure and function are possible and potentially useful for longitudinal clinical monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the magnitude and repeatability of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and mass (LVM) measurements in patients with clinically distinct cardiac conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited into four groups: (i) congestive heart failure (CHF), (ii) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), (iii) recent post myocardial infarct (PMI), and (iv) healthy normal volunteers (HNV). LV short-axis images were acquired on a 1.5T MRI scanner and analysed on a satellite workstation. EF and LVM (at ED) values were derived from myocardial segmentations, and intra-observer test-retest coefficients of repeatability (CoR) were determined for each cohort.
RESULTS: The mean EF for the CHF patients (30.3%) was lower than for the other cohorts (LVH 72.7%, PMI 53.0%, HNV 67.0%; P < 0.0002). As expected, the mean LVM for the CHF patients (143 g) was greater than for the other cohorts (LVH 122 g, PMI 124 g, HNV 107 g), but only significant when compared to the HNV cohort (P = 0.004). The intra-observer CoR values for EF were 1.5% (LVH), 1.6% (HNV), 2.6% (PMI) and 5.5% (CHF), and 4.6 g (HNV), 6.7 g (PMI), 8.3 g (CHF) and 9.8 g (LVH) for LVM.
CONCLUSION: The EF, LVM and associated repeatability parameters are variable and dependent upon the clinical condition under investigation. It is important that reproducibility data for EF and LVM are acquired individually and specifically on a per-cohort basis if the parameters are to form reliable endpoints for longitudinal clinical follow-up assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18231876     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-008-9293-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  15 in total

1.  MRI-derived left ventricular function parameters and mass in healthy young adults: relation with gender and body size.

Authors:  J T Marcus; L K DeWaal; M J Götte; R J van der Geest; R M Heethaar; A C Van Rossum
Journal:  Int J Card Imaging       Date:  1999-10

2.  MR Imaging of the heart with cine true fast imaging with steady-state precession: influence of spatial and temporal resolutions on left ventricular functional parameters.

Authors:  Stephan Miller; Orlando P Simonetti; James Carr; Ulrich Kramer; J Paul Finn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Ventricular volume and mass by CMR.

Authors:  Dudley J Pennell
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.364

4.  Operator induced variability in cardiovascular MR: left ventricular measurements and their reproducibility.

Authors:  Mikhail G Danilouchkine; Jos J M Westenberg; Albert de Roos; Johan H C Reiber; Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 5.  CMR of ventricular function.

Authors:  Niall G Keenan; Dudley J Pennell
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.724

6.  Effect of endocardial trabeculae on left ventricular measurements and measurement reproducibility at cardiovascular MR imaging.

Authors:  Theano Papavassiliu; Harald P Kühl; Meike Schröder; Tim Süselbeck; Olga Bondarenko; Christoph K Böhm; Aernout Beek; Mark M B Hofman; Albert C van Rossum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-13       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Reduction in sample size for studies of remodeling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  N G Bellenger; L C Davies; J M Francis; A J Coats; D J Pennell
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 5.364

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient.

Authors:  P B Bottini; A A Carr; L M Prisant; F W Flickinger; J D Allison; J S Gottdiener
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.689

9.  Estimation of human myocardial mass with MR imaging.

Authors:  J Katz; M C Milliken; J Stray-Gundersen; L M Buja; R W Parkey; J H Mitchell; R M Peshock
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Measurements of left ventricular dimensions using real-time acquisition in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with conventional gradient echo imaging.

Authors:  S Plein; W H Smith; J P Ridgway; A Kassner; D J Beacock; T N Bloomer; M U Sivananthan
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.533

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  LV mass assessed by echocardiography and CMR, cardiovascular outcomes, and medical practice.

Authors:  Anderson C Armstrong; Samuel Gidding; Ola Gjesdal; Colin Wu; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-08

2.  Quantification of left ventricular functional parameter values using 3D spiral bSSFP and through-time non-Cartesian GRAPPA.

Authors:  Kestutis J Barkauskas; Prabhakar Rajiah; Ravi Ashwath; Jesse I Hamilton; Yong Chen; Dan Ma; Katherine L Wright; Vikas Gulani; Mark A Griswold; Nicole Seiberlich
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 3.  Cardiac Imaging in Heart Failure with Comorbidities.

Authors:  Chiew Wong; Sylvia Chen; Pupalan Iyngkaran
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2017
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.