BACKGROUND: Clinical two-dimensional (2D) and clinical three-dimensional echocardiography are validated against cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), the gold standard for left ventricular (LV) volume measurement. In rodents, there is no widely accepted echocardiographic measure of whole LV volumes, and CMR measurements vary among studies. The aim of this study was to compare LV volumes by 2D echocardiography (using a hemisphere-cylinder [HC] model) with HC and full-volume (FV) CMR in normal and diseased rats to measure the impact of geometric models and imaging modalities. METHODS: Rats (n = 27) underwent ascending aortic banding, myocardial infarction induction by either permanent left anterior descending coronary artery ligation or ischemia-reperfusion, and sham thoracotomy. Subsequently, end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were measured using an HC 2D echocardiographic model combining parasternal short-axis and long-axis measurements, and these were compared with HC and FV CMR. RESULTS: Diseased groups showed LV dilatation and dysfunction. HC echocardiographic and FV CMR measures of end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were correlated. On Bland-Altman plots, end-diastolic volumes were concordant between both methods, while HC echocardiography underestimated end-systolic volumes, resulting in a modest overestimation of ejection fractions compared with FV CMR. Other 2D echocardiographic geometric models offered less concordance with FV CMR than HC. HC CMR overestimated LV volumes compared with FV CMR, while HC echocardiography underestimated HC CMR volumes. Echocardiography underestimated corresponding LV dimensions by CMR, particularly short axis. CONCLUSIONS: Concordant measures of LV volume and function were obtained using (1) a relatively simple HC model of the left ventricle inclusive of two orthogonal 2D echocardiographic planes and (2) FV CMR in normal and diseased rats. The HC model appeared to compensate for the underestimation of LV dimensions by echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: Clinical two-dimensional (2D) and clinical three-dimensional echocardiography are validated against cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), the gold standard for left ventricular (LV) volume measurement. In rodents, there is no widely accepted echocardiographic measure of whole LV volumes, and CMR measurements vary among studies. The aim of this study was to compare LV volumes by 2D echocardiography (using a hemisphere-cylinder [HC] model) with HC and full-volume (FV) CMR in normal and diseased rats to measure the impact of geometric models and imaging modalities. METHODS:Rats (n = 27) underwent ascending aortic banding, myocardial infarction induction by either permanent left anterior descending coronary artery ligation or ischemia-reperfusion, and sham thoracotomy. Subsequently, end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were measured using an HC 2D echocardiographic model combining parasternal short-axis and long-axis measurements, and these were compared with HC and FV CMR. RESULTS: Diseased groups showed LV dilatation and dysfunction. HC echocardiographic and FV CMR measures of end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were correlated. On Bland-Altman plots, end-diastolic volumes were concordant between both methods, while HC echocardiography underestimated end-systolic volumes, resulting in a modest overestimation of ejection fractions compared with FV CMR. Other 2D echocardiographic geometric models offered less concordance with FV CMR than HC. HC CMR overestimated LV volumes compared with FV CMR, while HC echocardiography underestimated HC CMR volumes. Echocardiography underestimated corresponding LV dimensions by CMR, particularly short axis. CONCLUSIONS: Concordant measures of LV volume and function were obtained using (1) a relatively simple HC model of the left ventricle inclusive of two orthogonal 2D echocardiographic planes and (2) FV CMR in normal and diseased rats. The HC model appeared to compensate for the underestimation of LV dimensions by echocardiography.
Authors: J Isgaard; V Kujacic; E Jennische; A Holmäng; X Y Sun; T Hedner; A Hjalmarson; B A Bengtsson Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 4.686
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Adam B Stein; Sumit Tiwari; Paul Thomas; Greg Hunt; Cemil Levent; Marcus F Stoddard; Xian-Liang Tang; Roberto Bolli; Buddhadeb Dawn Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: M Scherrer-Crosbie; W Steudel; P R Hunziker; N Liel-Cohen; R Ullrich; W M Zapol; M H Picard Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Dana Dawson; Craig A Lygate; James Saunders; Jürgen E Schneider; Xujiong Ye; Karen Hulbert; J Alison Noble; Stefan Neubauer Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Fatiha Maskali; Sylvain Poussier; Huguette Louis; Henri Boutley; Mickael Lhuillier; Simon N Thornton; Gilles Karcher; Patrick Lacolley; Pierre Y Marie Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Teresa Arias; Artiom Petrov; Jiqiu Chen; Hans de Haas; Carlos Pérez-Medina; Gustav J Strijkers; Roger J Hajjar; Zahi A Fayad; Valentín Fuster; Jagat Narula Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Merry L Lindsey; Zamaneh Kassiri; Jitka A I Virag; Lisandra E de Castro Brás; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Susana Rodriguez; Hannah C Little; Parnaz Daneshpajouhnejad; Blythe D Shepard; Stefanie Y Tan; Andrew Wolfe; Muhammad Umar Cheema; Sandeep Jandu; Owen M Woodward; C Conover Talbot; Dan E Berkowitz; Avi Z Rosenberg; Jennifer L Pluznick; G William Wong Journal: FASEB J Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Andreas Hagendorff; Fabian Knebel; Andreas Helfen; Stephan Stöbe; Dariush Haghi; Tobias Ruf; Daniel Lavall; Jan Knierim; Ertunc Altiok; Roland Brandt; Nicolas Merke; Sebastian Ewen Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-04-11 Impact factor: 5.460