OBJECTIVE: To compare measurement of left ventricular mass (LVM) by M-mode echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hypertensive subjects. DESIGN: A prospective study. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four untreated hypertensive patients [19 men and five women, aged 51 +/- 2 (mean +/- SEM) years, supine blood pressure 159/101 +/- 3/1 mmHg]. SETTING: The Blood Pressure Unit, St Georges Hospital Medical School and Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital, London. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: LVM estimated both by M-mode echocardiography and by MRI. RESULTS: Using three standard M-mode formulae, widely different values of LVM were obtained with echocardiography [American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) 319 +/- 21 g, Penn 273 +/- 19 g. Teichholz 191 +/- 11 g]. By MRI, the LVM was 232 +/- 11 g. The differences between MRI and echocardiography could not be explained in terms of the timing of measurements in the cardiac cycle. When single-slice MRI measurements at the appropriate level were applied to the ASE and Penn formulae, the LVM was again overestimated. CONCLUSION: Our study has shown major differences in LVM estimated using methods based on one-dimensional (echocardiography) compared with three-dimensional (MRI) data. These differences seem to be largely the result of the geometrical assumptions on which M-mode measurements are based. Our findings have important clinical implications for the assessment of the severity and response to treatment of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare measurement of left ventricular mass (LVM) by M-mode echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hypertensive subjects. DESIGN: A prospective study. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four untreated hypertensivepatients [19 men and five women, aged 51 +/- 2 (mean +/- SEM) years, supine blood pressure 159/101 +/- 3/1 mmHg]. SETTING: The Blood Pressure Unit, St Georges Hospital Medical School and Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital, London. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: LVM estimated both by M-mode echocardiography and by MRI. RESULTS: Using three standard M-mode formulae, widely different values of LVM were obtained with echocardiography [American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) 319 +/- 21 g, Penn 273 +/- 19 g. Teichholz 191 +/- 11 g]. By MRI, the LVM was 232 +/- 11 g. The differences between MRI and echocardiography could not be explained in terms of the timing of measurements in the cardiac cycle. When single-slice MRI measurements at the appropriate level were applied to the ASE and Penn formulae, the LVM was again overestimated. CONCLUSION: Our study has shown major differences in LVM estimated using methods based on one-dimensional (echocardiography) compared with three-dimensional (MRI) data. These differences seem to be largely the result of the geometrical assumptions on which M-mode measurements are based. Our findings have important clinical implications for the assessment of the severity and response to treatment of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensivepatients.
Authors: James C S Spratt; Stephen J Leslie; Audrey White; Lynn Fenn; Colin Turnbull; David B Northridge Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Sarah Clay; Khaled Alfakih; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Timothy Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sinvananthan Journal: MAGMA Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Tomas G Neilan; Francois-Pierre Mongeon; Ravi V Shah; Otavio Coelho-Filho; Siddique A Abbasi; John A Dodson; Ciaran J McMullan; Bobak Heydari; Gregory F Michaud; Roy M John; Ron Blankstein; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-11-27