PURPOSE: To apply cross-correlation delay (XCD) analysis to myocardial phase contrast magnetic resonance (PCMR) tissue velocity data and to compare XCD to three established "time-to-peak" dyssynchrony parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Myocardial tissue velocity was acquired using PCMR in 10 healthy volunteers (negative controls) and 10 heart failure patients who met criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (positive controls). All dyssynchrony parameters were computed from PCMR velocity curves. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis for separating positive and negative controls were computed for each dyssynchrony parameter. RESULTS: XCD had higher sensitivity (90%) and specificity (100%) for discriminating between normal and patient groups than any of the time-to-peak dyssynchrony parameters. ROC analysis showed that XCD was the best parameter for separating the positive and negative control groups. CONCLUSION: XCD is superior to time-to-peak dyssynchrony parameters for discriminating between subjects with and without dyssynchrony and may aid in the selection of patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Copyright (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To apply cross-correlation delay (XCD) analysis to myocardial phase contrast magnetic resonance (PCMR) tissue velocity data and to compare XCD to three established "time-to-peak" dyssynchrony parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Myocardial tissue velocity was acquired using PCMR in 10 healthy volunteers (negative controls) and 10 heart failurepatients who met criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (positive controls). All dyssynchrony parameters were computed from PCMR velocity curves. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis for separating positive and negative controls were computed for each dyssynchrony parameter. RESULTS:XCD had higher sensitivity (90%) and specificity (100%) for discriminating between normal and patient groups than any of the time-to-peak dyssynchrony parameters. ROC analysis showed that XCD was the best parameter for separating the positive and negative control groups. CONCLUSION:XCD is superior to time-to-peak dyssynchrony parameters for discriminating between subjects with and without dyssynchrony and may aid in the selection of patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Copyright (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeroen J Bax; Thomas H Marwick; Sander G Molhoek; Gabe B Bleeker; Lieselot van Erven; Eric Boersma; Paul Steendijk; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2003-11-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ole A Breithardt; Christoph Stellbrink; Andrew P Kramer; Anil M Sinha; Andreas Franke; Rodney Salo; Bernhard Schiffgens; Etienne Huvelle; Angelo Auricchio Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeroen J Bax; Theodore Abraham; S Serge Barold; Ole A Breithardt; Jeffrey W H Fung; Stephane Garrigue; John Gorcsan; David L Hayes; David A Kass; Juhani Knuuti; Christophe Leclercq; Cecilia Linde; Daniel B Mark; Mark J Monaghan; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Martin J Schalij; Christophe Stellbrink; Cheuk-Man Yu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeroen J Bax; Gabe B Bleeker; Thomas H Marwick; Sander G Molhoek; Eric Boersma; Paul Steendijk; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-11-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hugues Bader; Stephane Garrigue; Stephane Lafitte; Sylvain Reuter; Pierre Jaïs; Michel Haïssaguerre; Jacques Bonnet; Jacques Clementy; Raymond Roudaut Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-01-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jana G Delfino; Kevin R Johnson; Robert L Eisner; Susan Eder; Angel R Leon; John N Oshinski Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vincent C Thomas; Kristopher M Cumbermack; Carey K Lamphier; Christina R Phillips; Derek A Fyfe; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Janaka P Wansapura; Douglas P Millay; R Scott Dunn; Jeffery D Molkentin; D Woodrow Benson Journal: Neuromuscul Disord Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 4.296
Authors: Kan N Hor; Janaka P Wansapura; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; William M Gottliebson; Michael D Taylor; Richard J Czosek; Sherif F Nagueh; Nandakishore Akula; Eugene S Chung; Woodrow D Benson; Wojciech Mazur Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Jonathan D Suever; Gregory J Wehner; Christopher M Haggerty; Linyuan Jing; Sean M Hamlet; Cassi M Binkley; Sage P Kramer; Andrea C Mattingly; David K Powell; Kenneth C Bilchick; Frederick H Epstein; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Emil K S Espe; Jan Magnus Aronsen; Kristine Skårdal; Jürgen E Schneider; Lili Zhang; Ivar Sjaastad Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Sowmya Balasubramanian; David M Harrild; Basavaraj Kerur; Edward Marcus; Pedro Del Nido; Tal Geva; Andrew J Powell Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.364