PloS one · 2013
Improved cardiac MRI volume measurements in patients with tetralogy of Fallot by independent end-systolic and end-diastolic phase selection.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Freling Hendrik G, Pieper Petronella G, Vermeulen Karin M, van Swieten Jeroen M, Sijens Paul E, van Veldhuisen Dirk J, Willems Tineke P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate to what extent cardiac MRI derived measurements of right ventricular (RV) volumes using the left ventricular (LV) end-systolic and end-diastolic frame misrepresent RV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) and a right bundle branch block.
METHODS: Sixty-five cardiac MRI scans of patients with ToF and a right bundle branch block, and 50 cardiac MRI scans of control subjects were analyzed. RV volumes and function using the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame of the RV were compared to using the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame of the LV.
RESULTS: Timing of the RV end-systolic frame was delayed compared to the LV end-systolic frame in 94% of patients with ToF and in 50% of control subjects. RV end-systolic volume using the RV end-systolic instead of LV end-systolic frame was smaller in ToF (median -3.3 ml/m(2), interquartile range -1.9 to -5.6 ml/m(2); p<0.001) and close to unchanged in control subjects. Using the RV instead of LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame hardly affected RV end-diastolic volumes in both groups and ejection fraction in control subjects (54±4%, both methods), while increasing ejection fraction from 45±7% to 48±7% for patients with ToF (p<0.001). QRS duration correlated positively with the changes in the RV end-systolic volume (p<0.001) and RV ejection fraction obtained in ToF patients when using the RV instead of the LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame (p = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: For clinical decision making in ToF patients RV volumes derived from cardiac MRI should be measured in the end-systolic frame of the RV instead of the LV.
METHODS: Sixty-five cardiac MRI scans of patients with ToF and a right bundle branch block, and 50 cardiac MRI scans of control subjects were analyzed. RV volumes and function using the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame of the RV were compared to using the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame of the LV.
RESULTS: Timing of the RV end-systolic frame was delayed compared to the LV end-systolic frame in 94% of patients with ToF and in 50% of control subjects. RV end-systolic volume using the RV end-systolic instead of LV end-systolic frame was smaller in ToF (median -3.3 ml/m(2), interquartile range -1.9 to -5.6 ml/m(2); p<0.001) and close to unchanged in control subjects. Using the RV instead of LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame hardly affected RV end-diastolic volumes in both groups and ejection fraction in control subjects (54±4%, both methods), while increasing ejection fraction from 45±7% to 48±7% for patients with ToF (p<0.001). QRS duration correlated positively with the changes in the RV end-systolic volume (p<0.001) and RV ejection fraction obtained in ToF patients when using the RV instead of the LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame (p = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: For clinical decision making in ToF patients RV volumes derived from cardiac MRI should be measured in the end-systolic frame of the RV instead of the LV.