These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Three-dimensional analysis of left ventricular geometry using magnetic resonance imaging: feasibility and comparison with echocardiographic analysis].
    Author: Moriuchi M, Saito S, Kasamaki Y, Komaki K, Kanmatsuse K, Hayasaka K.
    Journal: J Cardiol; 2003 Dec; 42(6):249-60. PubMed ID: 14723017.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Reliability of left ventricular geometry assessed by echocardiography (Echo) using an assumed left ventricular mass (LVM) and one-dimensional eccentricity (relative wall thickness: RWT), remains questionable. This study evaluated the feasibility of three-dimensional left ventricular geometric analysis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Echocardiography and MRI were performed on 55 patients with hypertension. LVM was calculated using 0.8 (American Society of Echocardiography-cube LVM) + 0.6 g for Echo and the slice summation method for MRI. Eccentricity was determined by RWT (septal wall thickness + posterior wall thickness/left ventricular inner diameter) for Echo and LVM/1.05/left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) ratio [MRI-mass volume/cavity (M/C) ratio] for MRI. Left ventricular geometry was classified into four patterns according to the presence/absence of left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal/normal eccentricity (partition value: RWT = 0.44, MRI; M/C ratio = 2.0), and the patient distribution was compared between the two methods. RESULTS: Although the mean values for LVM were similar, the mean value for LVEDV by echocardiography was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) and the mean M/C ratio was significantly lower (r = 0.004) than those by MRI. There were widely dispersed LVM values at higher underlying values of LVM and significant correlations between MRI-LVEDV and MRI-LVM (r = 0.87) and between Echo-LVEDV and Echo-LVM (r = 0.75). There was a significant difference in patient distribution according to left ventricular geometric pattern between the two methods (p < 0.01). Concentric (n = 18) and eccentric hypertrophy (n = 12) were dominant patterns in Echo analysis, and concentric hypertrophy (n = 23) and concentric remodeling (n = 21) were dominant in MRI analysis. The left ventricular geometric patterns were different in 32 patients (58.0%). Inadequate LVEDV values in Echo were the primary cause of this phenomenon. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular geometric analysis by Echo results in inaccurate values. Three-dimensional left ventricular geometric analysis using MRI provides more accurate information about left ventricular geometry.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]