| 注册
首页|期刊导航|老年心脏病学杂志(英文版)|Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction: comparison of two dimensional echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 64-row multi-detector computed tomography

Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction: comparison of two dimensional echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 64-row multi-detector computed tomography

Chee Khoon LIEW Kui Hian SIM Rapaee ANNUAR Tiong Kiam ONG Sze Piaw CHIN Tobias Seyfarth Yean Yip FONG Wei Ling CHAN Choon Kiat ANG Houng Bang LIEW

老年心脏病学杂志(英文版)2006,Vol.3Issue(1):2-8,7.
老年心脏病学杂志(英文版)2006,Vol.3Issue(1):2-8,7.

Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction: comparison of two dimensional echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 64-row multi-detector computed tomography

Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction: comparison of two dimensional echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 64-row multi-detector computed tomography

Chee Khoon LIEW 1Kui Hian SIM 2Rapaee ANNUAR 1Tiong Kiam ONG 1Sze Piaw CHIN 3Tobias Seyfarth 1Yean Yip FONG 1Wei Ling CHAN 1Choon Kiat ANG 1Houng Bang LIEW1

作者信息

  • 1. Department of Cardiology, Sarawak General Hospital, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • 2. University Malaysia Sarawak
  • 3. Siemens Cardiac Solutions, Erlangen, Germany
  • 折叠

摘要

Abstract

Objectives To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined from 64-row multi-detector computed tomography (64-row MDCT) with those determined from two dimensional echocardiography (2D echo) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Methods Thirty-two patients with coronary artery disease underwent trans-thoracic 2D echo, CMR and contrast-enhanced 64-row MDCT for assessment of LVEF within 48 hours of each other. 64-row MDCT LVEF was derived using the Syngo Circulation software; CMR LVEF was by Area Length Ejection Fraction (ALEF) and Simpson method and 2D echo LVEF by Simpson method.Results The LVEF was 49.13 ± 15.91% by 2D echo, 50.72 ± 16.55% (ALEF method) and 47.65 ± 16.58%(Simpson method) by CMR and 50.00 ± 15.93% by 64-row MDCT. LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured with CMR using either the ALEF method (Pearson correlation r = 0.94, P <0.01) or Simpson method (r = 0.92, P<0.01). It also correlated well with LVEF measured using 2D echo (r = 0.80, P < 0.01). Conclusion LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured by CMR and 2D echo. The correlation between 64-row MDCT and CMR was better than the correlation between 2D echo with CMR. Standard data set from a 64-row MDCT coronary study can be reliably used to calculate the LVEF.

关键词

ejection fraction/echocardiography/magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography

Key words

ejection fraction/echocardiography/magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography

分类

医药卫生

引用本文复制引用

Chee Khoon LIEW,Kui Hian SIM,Rapaee ANNUAR,Tiong Kiam ONG,Sze Piaw CHIN,Tobias Seyfarth,Yean Yip FONG,Wei Ling CHAN,Choon Kiat ANG,Houng Bang LIEW..Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction: comparison of two dimensional echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 64-row multi-detector computed tomography[J].老年心脏病学杂志(英文版),2006,3(1):2-8,7.

老年心脏病学杂志(英文版)

1671-5411

访问量0
|
下载量0
段落导航相关论文