scholarly journals Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Are they interchangeable?

2000 ◽  
Vol 21 (16) ◽  
pp. 1387-1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Bellenger
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Radionuclide Ventriculography ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

scholarly journals Sequential cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction for prediction of subsequent events in a large multicenter STEMI registry

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Gavara ◽  
V Marcos-Garces ◽  
C Rios-Navarro ◽  
MP Lopez-Lereu ◽  
JV Monmeneu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
P Value ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): This work was supported by “Instituto de Salud Carlos III” and “Fondos Europeos de Desarrollo Regional FEDER” Background. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is the best tool for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) quantification, but as yet the prognostic value of sequential LVEF assessment for major adverse cardiac event (MACE) prediction after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is uncertain. Purpose. We explored the prognostic impact of sequential assessment of CMR-derived LVEF after STEMI to predict subsequent MACE. Methods. We recruited 1036 STEMI patients in a large multicenter registry. LVEF (reduced [r]: <40%; mid-range [mr]: 40-49%; preserved [p]: ≥50%) was sequentially quantified by CMR at 1 week and after >3 months of follow-up. MACE was regarded as cardiovascular death or re-admission for acute heart failure after follow-up CMR. Results. During a 5.7-year mean follow-up, 82 MACE (8%) were registered. The MACE rate was higher only in patients with LVEF < 40% at follow-up CMR (r-LVEF 22%, mr-LVEF 7%, p-LVEF 6%; p-value < 0.001). Based on LVEF dynamics from 1-week to follow-up CMR, incidence of MACE was 5% for sustained LVEF³40% (n = 783), 13% for improved LVEF (from <40 to ³40%, n = 96), 21% for worsened LVEF (from ³40% to <40%, n = 34) and 22% for sustained LVEF <40% (n = 100), p-value < 0.001. Using a Markov approach that considered all studies performed, transitions towards improved LVEF predominated and only r-LVEF (at any time assessed) was significantly related to higher incidence of subsequent MACE. Conclusions. LVEF constitutes a pivotal CMR index for simple and dynamic post-STEMI risk stratification. Detection of reduced LVEF (<40%) by CMR at any time during follow-up identifies a small subset of patients at high risk of subsequent events.

scholarly journals Comparison of the within-reader and inter-vendor agreement of left ventricular circumferential strains and volume indices derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0242908
Author(s):  
Doyin S. Mansell ◽  
Evelyn G. Frank ◽  
Nathaniel S. Kelly ◽  
Bruno Agostinho-Hernandez ◽  
James Fletcher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Volume Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Software Packages

Purpose Volume indices and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are routinely used to assess cardiac function. Ventricular strain values may provide additional diagnostic information, but their reproducibility is unclear. This study therefore compares the repeatability and reproducibility of volumes, volume fraction, and regional ventricular strains, derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, across three software packages and between readers. Methods Seven readers analysed 16 short-axis CMR stacks of a porcine heart. Endocardial contours were manually drawn using OsiriX and Simpleware ScanIP and repeated in both softwares. The images were also contoured automatically in Circle CVI42. Endocardial global, apical, mid-ventricular, and basal circumferential strains, as well as end-diastolic and end-systolic volume and LVEF were compared. Results Bland-Altman analysis found systematic biases in contour length between software packages. Compared to OsiriX, contour lengths were shorter in both ScanIP (-1.9 cm) and CVI42 (-0.6 cm), causing statistically significant differences in end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, and apical circumferential strain (all p<0.006). No differences were found for mid-ventricular, basal or global strains, or left ventricular ejection fraction (all p<0.007). All CVI42 results lay within the ranges of the OsiriX results. Intra-software differences were found to be lower than inter-software differences. Conclusion OsiriX and CVI42 gave consistent results for all strain and volume metrics, with no statistical differences found between OsiriX and ScanIP for mid-ventricular, global or basal strains, or left ventricular ejection fraction. However, volumes were influenced by the choice of contouring software, suggesting care should be taken when comparing volumes across different software.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document