OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and variability of 3 semi-quantitative (SQt) methods for assessing right ventricular (RV) systolic function from cardiac MRI in patients with acquired heart disease: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional-shortening (RVFS) and RV fractional area change (RVFAC). METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled. Reference RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was determined from short axis cine sequences. TAPSE, RVFS and RVFAC were measured on a 4-chamber cine sequence. All SQt analyses were performed twice by 3 observers with various degrees of training in cardiac MRI. Correlation with RVEF, intra- and inter-observer variability, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed for each SQt method. RESULTS: Correlation between RVFAC and RVEF was good for all observers and did not depend on previous cardiac MRI experience (R range = 0.716-0.741). Conversely, RVFS (R range = 0.534-0.720) and TAPSE (R range = 0.482-0.646) correlated less with RVEF and depended on previous experience. Intra- and inter-observer variability was much lower for RVFAC than for RVFS and TAPSE. ROC analysis demonstrated that RVFAC <41% could predict a RVEF <45% with 90% sensitivity and 94% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: RVFAC appears to be more accurate and reproducible than RVFS and TAPSE for SQt assessment of RV function by cardiac MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and variability of 3 semi-quantitative (SQt) methods for assessing right ventricular (RV) systolic function from cardiac MRI in patients with acquired heart disease: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional-shortening (RVFS) and RV fractional area change (RVFAC). METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled. Reference RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was determined from short axis cine sequences. TAPSE, RVFS and RVFAC were measured on a 4-chamber cine sequence. All SQt analyses were performed twice by 3 observers with various degrees of training in cardiac MRI. Correlation with RVEF, intra- and inter-observer variability, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed for each SQt method. RESULTS: Correlation between RVFAC and RVEF was good for all observers and did not depend on previous cardiac MRI experience (R range = 0.716-0.741). Conversely, RVFS (R range = 0.534-0.720) and TAPSE (R range = 0.482-0.646) correlated less with RVEF and depended on previous experience. Intra- and inter-observer variability was much lower for RVFAC than for RVFS and TAPSE. ROC analysis demonstrated that RVFAC <41% could predict a RVEF <45% with 90% sensitivity and 94% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: RVFAC appears to be more accurate and reproducible than RVFS and TAPSE for SQt assessment of RV function by cardiac MRI.
Authors: Khaled Alfakih; Sven Plein; Holger Thiele; Tim Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sivananthan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Robin Nijveldt; Tjeerd Germans; Gerald P McCann; Aernout M Beek; Albert C van Rossum Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Ghio; A Gavazzi; C Campana; C Inserra; C Klersy; R Sebastiani; E Arbustini; F Recusani; L Tavazzi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Frank Grothues; James C Moon; Nicholas G Bellenger; Gillian S Smith; Helmut U Klein; Dudley J Pennell Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Kelly M Chin; Martha Kingman; James A de Lemos; John J Warner; Sharon Reimold; Ron Peshock; Fernando Torres Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jun Chen; Heye Zhang; Weiwei Zhang; Xiuquan Du; Yanping Zhang; Shuo Li Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Celia P Corona-Villalobos; Ihab R Kamel; Neda Rastegar; Rachel Damico; Todd M Kolb; Danielle M Boyce; Ala-Eddin S Sager; Jan Skrok; Monda L Shehata; Jens Vogel-Claussen; David A Bluemke; Reda E Girgis; Stephen C Mathai; Paul M Hassoun; Stefan L Zimmerman Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: C Doesch; C Zompolou; F Streitner; D Haghi; R Schimpf; B Rudic; J Kuschyk; S O Schoenberg; M Borggrefe; T Papavassiliu Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.380