Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2002
Automated quantification of aortic regurgitant volume and regurgitant fraction using the digital colour Doppler velocity profile integration method in patients with aortic regurgitation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Miyake Y, Hozumi T, Mori I, Sugioka K, Yamamuro A, Akasaka T, Homma S, Yoshida K, Yoshikawa J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The recently introduced automated cardiac flow measurement (ACM) technique provides a quick and an accurate automated calculation of stroke volume and cardiac output. This is obtained by spatio-temporal integration of digital Doppler velocity profile data.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the ACM method in the non-invasive assessment of aortic regurgitant volume and per cent regurgitant fraction (%RF) in patients with aortic regurgitation.
METHODS: Aortic outflow volume and mitral inflow volume were calculated by the ACM method in 22 patients with isolated aortic regurgitation. Aortic regurgitant volume and %RF were calculated using the following equations: aortic regurgitant volume = [aortic outflow volume] - [mitral inflow volume]; %RF = [aortic regurgitant volume]/[aortic outflow volume] x 100. The results were compared with those obtained using pulsed Doppler cross sectional echocardiography (PD-2D).
RESULTS: Aortic regurgitant volumes measured by the ACM method showed a good correlation with the PD-2D measurements (r = 0.95, y = 0.9x + 3.9, SEE = 8.6 ml); the mean (SD) difference between the two methods was -1.5 (8.5) ml. %RF estimated by the ACM method also correlated well with the values obtained by the PD-2D method (r = 0.91, y = 0.9x + 4.9, SEE = 6.0%); the mean difference between the two methods was -1.5 (6.0)%. Total time required for aortic regurgitant volume (for one cardiac cycle) by the ACM method was significantly shorter than by the PD-2D method (130 (16) v 230 (32) s, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed the ACM method is quick and accurate in the automated assessment of aortic regurgitant volume and per cent regurgitant fraction in patients with isolated aortic regurgitation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the ACM method in the non-invasive assessment of aortic regurgitant volume and per cent regurgitant fraction (%RF) in patients with aortic regurgitation.
METHODS: Aortic outflow volume and mitral inflow volume were calculated by the ACM method in 22 patients with isolated aortic regurgitation. Aortic regurgitant volume and %RF were calculated using the following equations: aortic regurgitant volume = [aortic outflow volume] - [mitral inflow volume]; %RF = [aortic regurgitant volume]/[aortic outflow volume] x 100. The results were compared with those obtained using pulsed Doppler cross sectional echocardiography (PD-2D).
RESULTS: Aortic regurgitant volumes measured by the ACM method showed a good correlation with the PD-2D measurements (r = 0.95, y = 0.9x + 3.9, SEE = 8.6 ml); the mean (SD) difference between the two methods was -1.5 (8.5) ml. %RF estimated by the ACM method also correlated well with the values obtained by the PD-2D method (r = 0.91, y = 0.9x + 4.9, SEE = 6.0%); the mean difference between the two methods was -1.5 (6.0)%. Total time required for aortic regurgitant volume (for one cardiac cycle) by the ACM method was significantly shorter than by the PD-2D method (130 (16) v 230 (32) s, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed the ACM method is quick and accurate in the automated assessment of aortic regurgitant volume and per cent regurgitant fraction in patients with isolated aortic regurgitation.