Jiwon Kim1, Aparna Srinivasan2, Tania Seoane2, Antonino Di Franco2, Charles S Peskin3, David M McQueen3, Tracy K Paul2, Attila Feher2, Alexi Geevarghese2, Meenakshi Rozenstrauch2, Richard B Devereux2, Jonathan W Weinsaft4. 1. Greenberg Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Electronic address: jik9027@med.cornell.edu. 2. Greenberg Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Department of Mathematics, New York University, New York, New York. 4. Greenberg Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography-derived linear dimensions offer straightforward indices of right ventricular (RV) structure but have not been systematically compared with RV volumes on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Echocardiography and CMR were interpreted among patients with coronary artery disease imaged via prospective (90%) and retrospective (10%) registries. For echocardiography, American Society of Echocardiography-recommended RV dimensions were measured in apical four-chamber (basal RV width, mid RV width, and RV length), parasternal long-axis (proximal RV outflow tract [RVOT]), and short-axis (distal RVOT) views. For CMR, RV end-diastolic volume and RV end-systolic volume were quantified using border planimetry. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two patients underwent echocardiography and CMR within a narrow interval (0.4 ± 1.0 days); complete acquisition of all American Society of Echocardiography-recommended dimensions was feasible in 98%. All echocardiographic dimensions differed between patients with and those without RV dilation on CMR (P < .05). Basal RV width (r = 0.70), proximal RVOT width (r = 0.68), and RV length (r = 0.61) yielded the highest correlations with RV end-diastolic volume on CMR; end-systolic dimensions yielded similar correlations (r = 0.68, r = 0.66, and r = 0.65, respectively). In multivariate regression, basal RV width (regression coefficient = 1.96 per mm; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70; P < .001), RV length (regression coefficient = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.37; P < .001), and proximal RVOT width (regression coefficient = 2.62; 95% CI, 1.79-3.44; P < .001) were independently associated with CMR RV end-diastolic volume (r = 0.80). RV end-systolic volume was similarly associated with echocardiographic dimensions (basal RV width: 1.59 per mm [95% CI, 1.06-2.13], P < .001; RV length: 1.00 [95% CI, 0.66-1.34], P < .001; proximal RVOT width: 1.80 [95% CI, 1.22-2.39], P < .001) (r = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: RV linear dimensions provide readily obtainable markers of RV chamber size. Proximal RVOT and basal width are independently associated with CMR volumes, supporting the use of multiple linear dimensions when assessing RV size on echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography-derived linear dimensions offer straightforward indices of right ventricular (RV) structure but have not been systematically compared with RV volumes on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Echocardiography and CMR were interpreted among patients with coronary artery disease imaged via prospective (90%) and retrospective (10%) registries. For echocardiography, American Society of Echocardiography-recommended RV dimensions were measured in apical four-chamber (basal RV width, mid RV width, and RV length), parasternal long-axis (proximal RV outflow tract [RVOT]), and short-axis (distal RVOT) views. For CMR, RV end-diastolic volume and RV end-systolic volume were quantified using border planimetry. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two patients underwent echocardiography and CMR within a narrow interval (0.4 ± 1.0 days); complete acquisition of all American Society of Echocardiography-recommended dimensions was feasible in 98%. All echocardiographic dimensions differed between patients with and those without RV dilation on CMR (P < .05). Basal RV width (r = 0.70), proximal RVOT width (r = 0.68), and RV length (r = 0.61) yielded the highest correlations with RV end-diastolic volume on CMR; end-systolic dimensions yielded similar correlations (r = 0.68, r = 0.66, and r = 0.65, respectively). In multivariate regression, basal RV width (regression coefficient = 1.96 per mm; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70; P < .001), RV length (regression coefficient = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.37; P < .001), and proximal RVOT width (regression coefficient = 2.62; 95% CI, 1.79-3.44; P < .001) were independently associated with CMR RV end-diastolic volume (r = 0.80). RV end-systolic volume was similarly associated with echocardiographic dimensions (basal RV width: 1.59 per mm [95% CI, 1.06-2.13], P < .001; RV length: 1.00 [95% CI, 0.66-1.34], P < .001; proximal RVOT width: 1.80 [95% CI, 1.22-2.39], P < .001) (r = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: RV linear dimensions provide readily obtainable markers of RV chamber size. Proximal RVOT and basal width are independently associated with CMR volumes, supporting the use of multiple linear dimensions when assessing RV size on echocardiography.
Authors: Lawrence G Rudski; Wyman W Lai; Jonathan Afilalo; Lanqi Hua; Mark D Handschumacher; Krishnaswamy Chandrasekaran; Scott D Solomon; Eric K Louie; Nelson B Schiller Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Niek H J Prakken; Arco J Teske; Maarten J Cramer; Arend Mosterd; Annieke C Bosker; Willem P Mali; Pieter A Doevendans; Birgitta K Velthuis Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2011-01-29 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: M Louisa Antoni; Roderick W C Scherptong; Jael Z Atary; Eric Boersma; Eduard R Holman; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02-27 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jonathan W Weinsaft; Jiwon Kim; Chaitanya B Medicherla; Claudia L Ma; Noel C F Codella; Nina Kukar; Subhi Alaref; Raymond J Kim; Richard B Devereux Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-10-14
Authors: Amish Jain; Adel Mohamed; Afif El-Khuffash; Kim A Connelly; Frederic Dallaire; Robert P Jankov; Patrick J McNamara; Luc Mertens Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Noel C F Codella; Matthew D Cham; Richard Wong; Christopher Chu; James K Min; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Heleen B van der Zwaan; Willem A Helbing; Jackie S McGhie; Marcel L Geleijnse; Saskia E Luijnenburg; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Folkert J Meijboom Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Stephanie M Shors; Carina W Fung; Christopher J François; J Paul Finn; David S Fieno Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Sara Rodriguez-Diego; Aparna Srinivasan; Rachel-Maria Brown; Meridith P Pollie; Antonino Di Franco; Samantha R Goldburg; Jonathan Y Siden; Mark B Ratcliffe; Robert A Levine; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Antonino Di Franco; Tania Seoane; Aparna Srinivasan; Polydoros N Kampaktsis; Alexi Geevarghese; Samantha R Goldburg; Saadat A Khan; Massimiliano Szulc; Mark B Ratcliffe; Robert A Levine; Ashley E Morgan; Pooja Maddula; Meenakshi Rozenstrauch; Tara Shah; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jonathan Kochav; Jennifer Chen; Lakshmi Nambiar; Hannah W Mitlak; Arielle Kushman; Razia Sultana; Evelyn Horn; Arindam RoyChoudhury; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Jiwon Kim Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 7.722
Authors: Lisa Q Rong; Brian Yum; Christiane Abouzeid; Maria Chiara Palumbo; Lillian R Brouwer; Richard B Devereux; Leonard N Girardi; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Mario Gaudino; Jiwon Kim Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Antonino Di Franco; Jiwon Kim; Sara Rodriguez-Diego; Omar Khalique; Jonathan Y Siden; Samantha R Goldburg; Neil K Mehta; Aparna Srinivasan; Mark B Ratcliffe; Robert A Levine; Filippo Crea; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ashley N Beecy; Alex Bratt; Brian Yum; Razia Sultana; Mukund Das; Ines Sherifi; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Jiwon Kim Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Alexander Volodarskiy; Razia Sultana; Meridith P Pollie; Brian Yum; Lakshmi Nambiar; Romina Tafreshi; Hannah W Mitlak; Arindam RoyChoudhury; Evelyn M Horn; Ingrid Hriljac; Nupoor Narula; Sijun Kim; Lishomwa Ndhlovu; Parag Goyal; Monika M Safford; Leslee Shaw; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 24.094