OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether right ventricular (RV) volumes are more accurately and reproducibly measured by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in an axial orientation or in a short-axis orientation in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on the most suitable imaging plane for RV volumetric analysis in the setting of abnormal RV physiology. METHODS: Measurements of RV volumes from datasets acquired in axial and short-axis orientations were made in 50 patients with CHD. RV stroke volumes (SV) calculated using these 2 methods were compared with forward flow measured in the pulmonary trunk by phase contrast (PC) imaging. Repeated volume measurements were made to assess intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Bland-Altman plots and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used for all analyses of agreement. RESULTS: Analysis of all subjects revealed a statistically significant difference in interobserver reliability of RV end-systolic volume (ESV) measurements that favored the axial method (p = 0.047). The magnitude of measurement differences between observers in this case was small (-2.8 ml/m(2); 95% confidence interval: -5.6 to 0.0). There was no difference between the 2 contouring methods in terms of intraobserver reliability in measurements of RV end-diastolic volume (EDV), ESV, ejection fraction, or SV (p > 0.05 in all cases). In subjects with RV EDV ≥ 150 ml/m(2), RV SV measured using axial contours yielded better agreement with forward flow measured in the pulmonary trunk (CCC = 0.63) than did measurements made using short-axis contours (CCC = 0.56; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Trends favoring the axial orientation in terms of reproducibility were not clinically significant. In subjects with RV EDV ≥ 150 ml/m(2), the axial orientation yields RV volume measurements that agree more closely with flow measured in the pulmonary trunk than does the short-axis orientation.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether right ventricular (RV) volumes are more accurately and reproducibly measured by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in an axial orientation or in a short-axis orientation in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on the most suitable imaging plane for RV volumetric analysis in the setting of abnormal RV physiology. METHODS: Measurements of RV volumes from datasets acquired in axial and short-axis orientations were made in 50 patients with CHD. RV stroke volumes (SV) calculated using these 2 methods were compared with forward flow measured in the pulmonary trunk by phase contrast (PC) imaging. Repeated volume measurements were made to assess intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Bland-Altman plots and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used for all analyses of agreement. RESULTS: Analysis of all subjects revealed a statistically significant difference in interobserver reliability of RV end-systolic volume (ESV) measurements that favored the axial method (p = 0.047). The magnitude of measurement differences between observers in this case was small (-2.8 ml/m(2); 95% confidence interval: -5.6 to 0.0). There was no difference between the 2 contouring methods in terms of intraobserver reliability in measurements of RV end-diastolic volume (EDV), ESV, ejection fraction, or SV (p > 0.05 in all cases). In subjects with RV EDV ≥ 150 ml/m(2), RV SV measured using axial contours yielded better agreement with forward flow measured in the pulmonary trunk (CCC = 0.63) than did measurements made using short-axis contours (CCC = 0.56; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Trends favoring the axial orientation in terms of reproducibility were not clinically significant. In subjects with RV EDV ≥ 150 ml/m(2), the axial orientation yields RV volume measurements that agree more closely with flow measured in the pulmonary trunk than does the short-axis orientation.
Authors: Hendrik G Freling; Kees van Wijk; Karolien Jaspers; Petronella G Pieper; Karin M Vermeulen; Jeroen M van Swieten; Tineke P Willems Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mieke M P Driessen; Vivan J M Baggen; Hendrik G Freling; Petronella G Pieper; Arie P van Dijk; Pieter A Doevendans; Repke J Snijder; Marco C Post; Folkert J Meijboom; Gertjan T Sieswerda; Tim Leiner; Tineke P Willems Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Abraham Bogachkov; Jad Bou Ayache; Bradley D Allen; Ian Murphy; Maria L Carr; Bruce Spottiswoode; Michaela Schmidt; Michael O Zenge; Mariappan S Nadar; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Benjamin H Freed; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kate Hanneman; Aya Kino; Joseph Y Cheng; Marcus T Alley; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: William Eysenck; Jet van Zalen; Nick Freemantle; Guy Lloyd; Stephen Furniss; Neil Sulke Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 3.738