Aleksandra Trzebiatowska-Krzynska1, Eva Swahn1, Lars Wallby1, Niels Erik Nielsen1, Carl Johan Carlhäll2,3, Jan Engvall2,3. 1. Department of Cardiology and Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden. 2. Department of Clinical Physiology and Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden. 3. CMIV - Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 3-Dimensional Echocardiography allows measuring volumes and parameters of myocardial deformation (strain). Myocardial strain has been suggested to be superior to conventional echo parameters in the assessment of right ventricular (RV) function. Myocardial strain can be assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or two- and three-dimensional echocardiography (2D and 3DEcho). We performed a comprehensive assessment of the RV based on 3DEcho and compared the results with those based on CMR and 2DEcho. METHODS: 36 patients with corrected heart defects underwent CMR and 3DEcho to assess RV volume, strain and cardio pulmonary exercise testing with peak VO2 measurement. 2DEcho was used for reference. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between 3DEcho and CMR for measuring RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (r = .82 and .72). 3DEcho tended to underestimate the RV volumes, mean difference EDV 8.5 ± 33 ml (CI -2.8; 19.7 ml) and ESV 13.2 ± 29 ml (CI 3.3; 23 ml). According to method-specific reference values for RVEDV, 34/35 (3DEcho) and 29/36 (CMR) were dilated. Among those dilated according to CMR, all were identified by 3DEcho. The coefficient of correlation between RV atrioventricular plane displacement measured by CMR and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion measured by 3D and 2DEcho was r = .6 for both. 2DEcho measured lower LV volumes than CMR. LVEF and GLS were similar in 2DEcho, 3DEcho and CMR. Patients with CMR-determined RV free wall strain ≤ -14% tended to have lower peak VO2 . CONCLUSIONS: Although 3DEcho underestimated RV volumes, it successfully identified all patients with RV dilatation based on method-specific reference values.
BACKGROUND: 3-Dimensional Echocardiography allows measuring volumes and parameters of myocardial deformation (strain). Myocardial strain has been suggested to be superior to conventional echo parameters in the assessment of right ventricular (RV) function. Myocardial strain can be assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or two- and three-dimensional echocardiography (2D and 3DEcho). We performed a comprehensive assessment of the RV based on 3DEcho and compared the results with those based on CMR and 2DEcho. METHODS: 36 patients with corrected heart defects underwent CMR and 3DEcho to assess RV volume, strain and cardio pulmonary exercise testing with peak VO2 measurement. 2DEcho was used for reference. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between 3DEcho and CMR for measuring RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (r = .82 and .72). 3DEcho tended to underestimate the RV volumes, mean difference EDV 8.5 ± 33 ml (CI -2.8; 19.7 ml) and ESV 13.2 ± 29 ml (CI 3.3; 23 ml). According to method-specific reference values for RVEDV, 34/35 (3DEcho) and 29/36 (CMR) were dilated. Among those dilated according to CMR, all were identified by 3DEcho. The coefficient of correlation between RV atrioventricular plane displacement measured by CMR and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion measured by 3D and 2DEcho was r = .6 for both. 2DEcho measured lower LV volumes than CMR. LVEF and GLS were similar in 2DEcho, 3DEcho and CMR. Patients with CMR-determined RV free wall strain ≤ -14% tended to have lower peak VO2 . CONCLUSIONS: Although 3DEcho underestimated RV volumes, it successfully identified all patients with RV dilatation based on method-specific reference values.
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Wendy Tsang; David H Adams; Eustachio Agricola; Thomas Buck; Francesco F Faletra; Andreas Franke; Judy Hung; Leopoldo Pérez de Isla; Otto Kamp; Jaroslaw D Kasprzak; Patrizio Lancellotti; Thomas H Marwick; Marti L McCulloch; Mark J Monaghan; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Natesa G Pandian; Patricia A Pellikka; Mauro Pepi; David A Roberson; Stanton K Shernan; Girish S Shirali; Lissa Sugeng; Folkert J Ten Cate; Mani A Vannan; Jose Luis Zamorano; William A Zoghbi Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Andrew M Crean; Neil Maredia; George Ballard; Ravi Menezes; Gill Wharton; Jan Forster; John P Greenwood; John D Thomson Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Einar Heiberg; Jane Sjögren; Martin Ugander; Marcus Carlsson; Henrik Engblom; Håkan Arheden Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Giovanni Di Salvo; Owen Miller; Sonya Babu Narayan; Wei Li; Werner Budts; Emanuela R Valsangiacomo Buechel; Alessandra Frigiola; Annemien E van den Bosch; Beatrice Bonello; Luc Mertens; Tarique Hussain; Victoria Parish; Gilbert Habib; Thor Edvardsen; Tal Geva; Helmut Baumgartner; Michael A Gatzoulis Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Boyang Liu; Ahmed M Dardeer; William E Moody; Nicola C Edwards; Lucy E Hudsmith; Richard P Steeds Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Aleksandra Trzebiatowska-Krzynska; Eva Swahn; Lars Wallby; Niels Erik Nielsen; Carl Johan Carlhäll; Jan Engvall Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 2.273