PURPOSE: To validate noninvasive cardiac output measurements of phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) and cine MRI using an invasive pressure-volume (PV) loop technique on a swine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared three methods for evaluating cardiac function at rest and under pharmaceutical low-dose inotropic infusion conditions: 1) phase-contrast MRI, 2) cine MRI, and 3) PV loop relationship. These measurements were made in 14 domestic pigs under rest conditions. Identical MRI acquisitions and PV loop analysis were performed on six pigs from the same group that received an infusion of dobutamine 2.5 μg/kg/min. Cardiac outputs from all measurements were analyzed and compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Noninvasive PC-MRI and cine MRI did not show any significant differences compared to an invasive PV loop technique for measurement of cardiac output under both rest (PC-MRI, cine MRI, and PV loop, 3.17 ± 0.45, 3.18 ± 0.61, 3.45 ± 0.41 L/min, respectively) and pharmaceutical low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (PC-MRI, cine MRI, and PV loop, 4.78 ± 0.53, 4.7 ± 0.6, 4.96 ± 0.48 L/min, respectively). Statistical analysis showed good agreement of cardiac output measurements at rest (R(2) = 0.83) and under low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (R(2) = 0.74) using PC-MRI and PV loop techniques. Cardiac output measurement using cine MRI and PV loop techniques also showed good agreement at rest (R(2) = 0.85) and under low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (R(2) = 0.76). Furthermore, cardiac outputs determined with the three modalities showed good agreement over a wide range of heart rates (90-180 bpm). CONCLUSION: MRI can provide a reliable, noninvasive measurement of cardiac output that can be carried out without the complications that are inherent with current invasive procedures.
PURPOSE: To validate noninvasive cardiac output measurements of phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) and cine MRI using an invasive pressure-volume (PV) loop technique on a swine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared three methods for evaluating cardiac function at rest and under pharmaceutical low-dose inotropic infusion conditions: 1) phase-contrast MRI, 2) cine MRI, and 3) PV loop relationship. These measurements were made in 14 domestic pigs under rest conditions. Identical MRI acquisitions and PV loop analysis were performed on six pigs from the same group that received an infusion of dobutamine 2.5 μg/kg/min. Cardiac outputs from all measurements were analyzed and compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Noninvasive PC-MRI and cine MRI did not show any significant differences compared to an invasive PV loop technique for measurement of cardiac output under both rest (PC-MRI, cine MRI, and PV loop, 3.17 ± 0.45, 3.18 ± 0.61, 3.45 ± 0.41 L/min, respectively) and pharmaceutical low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (PC-MRI, cine MRI, and PV loop, 4.78 ± 0.53, 4.7 ± 0.6, 4.96 ± 0.48 L/min, respectively). Statistical analysis showed good agreement of cardiac output measurements at rest (R(2) = 0.83) and under low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (R(2) = 0.74) using PC-MRI and PV loop techniques. Cardiac output measurement using cine MRI and PV loop techniques also showed good agreement at rest (R(2) = 0.85) and under low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (R(2) = 0.76). Furthermore, cardiac outputs determined with the three modalities showed good agreement over a wide range of heart rates (90-180 bpm). CONCLUSION: MRI can provide a reliable, noninvasive measurement of cardiac output that can be carried out without the complications that are inherent with current invasive procedures.
Authors: Philip W J Raake; Jens Barthelmes; Birgit Krautz; Sebastian Buss; Regina Huditz; Philipp Schlegel; Christophe Weber; Manfred Stangassinger; Uwe Haberkorn; Hugo A Katus; Patrick Most; Sven T Pleger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-05-05 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Valentina O Puntmann; Silvia Valbuena; Rocio Hinojar; Steffen E Petersen; John P Greenwood; Christopher M Kramer; Raymond Y Kwong; Gerry P McCann; Colin Berry; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Ahmed E Hozain; Yuliya Tipograf; Meghan R Pinezich; Katherine M Cunningham; Rachel Donocoff; Dawn Queen; Kenmond Fung; Charles C Marboe; Brandon A Guenthart; John D O'Neill; Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic; Matthew Bacchetta Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 6.439
Authors: David P Stonko; Joseph Edwards; Hossam Abdou; Noha N Elansary; Eric Lang; Samuel G Savidge; Jonathan J Morrison Journal: JVS Vasc Sci Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Vincenzo Lionetti; Simone Lorenzo Romano; Giacomo Bianchi; Fabio Bernini; Anar Dushpanova; Giuseppe Mascia; Martina Nesti; Franco Di Gregorio; Alberto Barbetta; Luigi Padeletti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.240