| Literature DB >> 28069008 |
Haitham Ballo1,2, Miikka Tarkia3, Matti Haavisto3, Christoffer Stark4,5, Marjatta Strandberg4, Tommi Vähäsilta4,5, Virva Saunavaara3, Tuula Tolvanen3, Mika Teräs3, Ville-Veikko Hynninen6, Timo Savunen5, Anne Roivainen3,7, Juhani Knuuti3, Antti Saraste3,4,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated echocardiographic area-length methods to measure left ventricle (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in parasternal short axis views in comparison with cardiac computed tomography (CT) in pigs with chronic myocardial infarction (MI).Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac CT; Ejection fraction; Transthoracic echocardiography
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28069008 PMCID: PMC5223339 DOI: 10.1186/s12947-016-0093-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
Hemodynamic characteristics of pigs with myocardial infarction (MI) and controls
| Cardiovascular index | Control ( | MI ( | All ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heart rate (bpm) | 110 ± 18 | 86 ± 18 | 95 ± 21 | 0.16 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 142 ± 18 | 120 ± 18 | 128 ± 20 | 0.19 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 96 ± 6 | 78 ± 15 | 84 ± 15 | 0.12 |
Fig. 1Echocardiographic parasternal short-axis views of the left ventricle (LV) at the level of mitral valve (a and d), papillary muscles (b and e) and apex (c and f) at systole (a, b and c) and end-diastole (d, e and f). Short axis cardiac CT views of the LV of the same pig at the level of mitral valve (g and j), papillary muscles (h and k) and apex (i and l) at systole (g, h and i) and end-diastole (j, k and l). The pig had myocardial infarction involving of45% of the LV
Left ventricle volumes at diastole (EDV) and systole (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) measured by cardiac CT or echocardiography and either Simpson’s, or Cylinder-hemiellipsoid methods in pigs with chronic myocardial infarction (MI) and controls
| Control ( | MI ( | All ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDV (mL) | ||||
| Cardiac CT | 140 ± 19 | 227 ± 96 | 196 ± 88 | 0.07 |
| Modified Simpson’s | 124 ± 18 | 225 ± 126 a | 189 ± 111 | 0.1 |
| Cylinder hemiellipsoid | 112 ± 22 | 230 ± 140 b | 188 ± 125 | 0.09 |
| ESV (mL) | ||||
| Cardiac CT | 49 ± 2 | 137 ± 79 | 106 ± 76 | 0.03 |
| Modified Simpson’s | 59 ± 14 | 149 ± 98 c | 117 ± 89 | 0.07 |
| Cylinder hemiellipsoid | 47 ± 14 | 150 ± 94 d | 113 ± 90 | 0.03 |
| EF (%) | ||||
| Cardiac CT | 64 ± 4 | 42 ± 10 | 50 ± 14 | <0.001 |
| Modified Simpson’s | 53 ± 5 | 37 ± 8 e | 42 ± 11 | 0.0015 |
| Cylinder hemiellipsoid | 59 ± 7 | 38 ± 6 f | 46 ± 12 | <0.001 |
a P = 0.86 vs. Cardiac CT, b P = 0.85 vs. Cardiac CT, c P = 0.72 vs. Cardiac CT, d P = 0.82 vs. Cardiac CT, e P = 0.1 vs. Cardiac CT, f P = 0.3 vs. Cardiac CT
Coefficients of variation (CV) between repeated measurements by the same (Intra-observer) and two (Inter-observer) observers in 5 pigs
| Echocardiographic index | Intra-observer | Inter-observer |
|---|---|---|
| CV (%) | CV (%) | |
| Modified Simpson’s | ||
| Ejection fraction | 8.2 | 10.4 |
| End-diastolic volume | 2.5 | 6.4 |
| End-systolic volume | 4.7 | 10.9 |
| Cylinder hemiellipsoid | ||
| Ejection fraction | 9.3 | 10.4 |
| End-diastolic volume | 1.9 | 10.3 |
| End-systolic volume | 2.5 | 6.4 |
Fig. 2Correlations between ejection fraction (EF, a and b), end-diastolic volume (EDV, c and d) and end-systolic volume (ESV, e and f) measured by cardiac computed tomography (Cardiac-CT) and echocardiography using either the modified Simpson’s method (a, c, e) or cylinder hemiellipsoid method (b, d, f) in pigs with MI
Fig. 3Bland-Altman analysis for agreement between ejection fraction (EF, a and b), end-diastolic volume (EDV, c and d) and end-systolic volume (ESV, e and f) measured by cardiac computed tomography (Cardiac-CT) and echocardiography using either the modified Simpson’s method (a, c, e) or cylinder hemiellipsoid method (b, d, f) in pigs with MI