The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2018
Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography in Assessment of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Fabry Disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hazari Hassan, Belenkie Israel, Kryski Albert, White James A, Oudit Gavin Y, Thompson Richard, Fung Tak, Dehar Navdeep, Khan Aneal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac hypertrophy in Fabry disease can be assessed using the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) with either echocardiography (LVMI-ECHO) or magnetic resonance imaging (LVMI-CMR).
METHODS: A retrospective case series of patients with Fabry disease in Alberta involved a cross-sectional analysis of 32 patients and a longitudinal analysis of 14 of these patients with at least 4 serial CMR measurements.
RESULTS: The cross-sectional analysis showed the mean LVMI-ECHO was 97.8 ± 26.0 g/m2, which was higher compared with LVMI-CMR at 81.1 ± 26.9 g/m2 with a mean bias of 16.7 g/m2 (P < 0.001). In the longitudinal analysis, LVMI-ECHO was higher, with an estimated marginal mean of 96.21 ± 6.13 (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) compared with 71.18 ± 5.99 for LVMI-CMR (P < 0.01; generalized estimating equations). There was an association between an increase in LVMI-CMR over time with the presence of cardiac fibrosis, and patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) had slower increases than those without therapy. LVMI-ECHO failed to detect these associations owing to the higher variability and tendency to overestimate the LVMI.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose the preferred method for measuring LVMI is CMR in patients with Fabry disease.
METHODS: A retrospective case series of patients with Fabry disease in Alberta involved a cross-sectional analysis of 32 patients and a longitudinal analysis of 14 of these patients with at least 4 serial CMR measurements.
RESULTS: The cross-sectional analysis showed the mean LVMI-ECHO was 97.8 ± 26.0 g/m2, which was higher compared with LVMI-CMR at 81.1 ± 26.9 g/m2 with a mean bias of 16.7 g/m2 (P < 0.001). In the longitudinal analysis, LVMI-ECHO was higher, with an estimated marginal mean of 96.21 ± 6.13 (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) compared with 71.18 ± 5.99 for LVMI-CMR (P < 0.01; generalized estimating equations). There was an association between an increase in LVMI-CMR over time with the presence of cardiac fibrosis, and patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) had slower increases than those without therapy. LVMI-ECHO failed to detect these associations owing to the higher variability and tendency to overestimate the LVMI.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose the preferred method for measuring LVMI is CMR in patients with Fabry disease.