Abstract:

Aim: was to determine what dimensions of an end-diastolic volume (EDV) in patients with reducec left ventricular function (LV) higher chances to measure its value up to 50 ml with Echocardiography compared to MRI.

Materials and methods: the sample consisted of 134 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ejection fraction (EF) less than 35%. A mathematical model that calculates what dimensions of the MLC are more likely to determine its size with an accuracy of up to 50 ml with Echocardiography compared to MRI. Produced logistic regression analysis and calculated odds ratios.

Results: аccording to Echocardiography the EDV was 250.5 ± 67.6 ml, EF was 29.4 ± 5.0 percent. According to MRI, the EDV was 249.3 ± 77.2 ml, EF was 29.9 ± 6.4 percent. Results of the logistic regression analysis showed that EDV to 150 ml have high chances of a consistent measure of EDV with Echocardiography and MRI (OR a 2,5). In groups with EDV more than 150 ml but less than 300 ml had low chances of an accurate measurement of the EDV at the Echocardiography (OR from 0,62 to 0,95). Since EDV is greater than 300 ml, a marked increase chances Echocardiography, to determine EDV up to 50 ml compared to MRI (OR from 2,3 to 4,2).

Conclusions: when EDV to 150 ml, and in dilatation of the left ventricle more than 300 ml MRI has no advantages compared to Echocardiography In these figures there is no need to duplicate echocardiographic study When the EDV of 150 to 300 ml, for determination of volumetric indices it is better to use MRI, because the computations do not depend on the geometric shape of the left ventricle.

References

1.     Brown M., Schaff N., Suri R. et al. Indexed Left Ventricular Dimensions Best Predict Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Valve Regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87: 1170-1176.

2.     Grayburn P, AppletonC., DeMaria A. et al. Echocardiographic Predictors of Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure. The Beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45: 1064-1071.

3.     Kleml., Shah D., White R. et al. Prognostic Value of Routine Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Myocardial Damage. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011; 4: 610-619.

4.     Malm S., Frigstad S., Sagberg E.; et al. Accurate and reproducible measurement of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction by contrast echocardiography a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44 (5): 1030-1035.

5.     Bogaert J., Dymarkowski S., Taylor A. M. et al. Clinical Cardiac MRI. Springer. 2012; 721.

6.     Kreitner, K-F, Sandstede J. Leitlinien for den Einsatz der MR-Tomographi in der Herzdiagnostik. Fortschr Roentgenstr. 2004; 176: 1185-1193.

7.     Bellenger N.G., Burgess M.I., Ray S.G. Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionucleide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Are they interchangeable? Eur Heart J. 2000; 21: 1387-1396.

8.     Bernard Y, Meneveau N., Boucher S. et al. Lack of agreement between left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined by two-dimensional echocardiography and contrast cineangiography in postinfarction patients. Echocardiography. 2001; 18: 113-122.

9.     De Haan S., de Boer K., Commandeur J. et al. Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients eligible for ICD therapy: Discrepancy between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D echocardiography. Neth Heart J. 2014; 22 (10): 449-455.

10.   Gardner B., Bingham S., Allen M. et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography for the assessment of cardiac volumes and regional function after myocardial infarction: an intrasubject comparison using simultaneous intrasubject recordings. The J of Cardiovasc ultrasound. 2009; 7: 38.

11.   Bellenger N.G., Francis J.M., Davies L.C. et al. Establishment and performance of a magnetic resonance cardiac function clinic. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 1999; 1 (4): 323-330.

12.   Darasz K.H., Underwood S.R., Bayliss J. et al. Measurement of left ventricular volume after anterior myocardial infarction: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, echocardiography, and radionuclide ventriculography. The Int J of Cardiovasc Imaging. 2002; 18(2): 135-142.

13.   Li C., Lossnitzer D., Katus H.A. et al. Comparison of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by monoplane cineventriculography, unenhanced echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012; 28 (5): 1003-1010.

14.   Duncan A.I., Lowe B.S., Garcia M.J. et al. Influence of concentric left ventricular remodeling on early mortality after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008; 85 (6): 2030-2039.

15.   Lang R., Bierig M., Devereux R. et al. Recommendations for Chamber Quantification: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005; 18: 14401463.

16.   Belenkov Ju.N., Ternovoj S.K., Sinicyn V.E. Magnitno-rezonansnaja tomografija serdca i sosudov [Cardiac and vesssels MRI]. M.: Vidar. 1997; 144 [In Russ].

17.   Di Donato M., Sabatier M., Dor V. Akinetic versus dyskinetic postinfarction scar: relation to surgical outcome in patients undergoing endoventricular circular patch plasty repair. JACC. 1997; 29: 1569-1575.

18.   Hoffmann R., von Bardeleben S., ten Cate F., et al. Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: a multicentre comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 607-16.

19.   Jenkins C., Moir S., Chan J. et al. Left ventricular volume measurement with echocardiography: a comparison of left ventricular opacification, three-dimensional echocardiography, or both with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30: 98-106.

20.   Lim T.K., Burden L., Janardhanan R., et al. Improved accuracy of low-power contrast echocardiography for the assessment of left ventricular remodeling compared with unenhanced harmonic echocardiography after acute myocardial infarction: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005; 18: 1203-1207.

21.   Thomson H.L., Basmadjian A., Rainbird A. et al. Contrast echocardiography improves the accuracy and reproducibility of left ventricular remodeling measurements: A prospective, randomly assigned, blinded study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 867-875.

22.   Buziashvili Ju.I., Kljuchnikov I.V., Melkonjan A.M. i soavt. Ishemicheskoe remodelirovanie levogo zheludochka (opredelenie, patogenez, diagnostika, medikamentoznaja i hirurgicheskaja korrekcija) [Ischemic remodeling of left ventricle (determination, pathogenesis, diagnostics, drug and surgical correction]. Kardiologija. 2002; 42 (10): 88-94 [In Russ].

23.   Chernjavskij A.M., Kareva Ju.E., Denisova M.A. i soavt. Problema predoperacionnogo modelirovanija levogo zheludochka [Problem of post-operative remodeling of left ventricle]. Kardiologija i serdechno-sosudistaja hirurgija. 2015; 2: 4-7 [In Russ].

24.   Di Donato M., Castelvecchio S., Kukulski T. et al. Surgical Ventricular Restoration: Left Ventricular Shape Influence on Cardiac Function, Clinical Status, and Survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87 (2): 455-461.

25.   Ahn H.S., Kim H.K., Park E.A. et al. Isolated, broad-based apical diverticulum: cardiac magnetic resonance is a «terminator» of cardiac imaging modality for the evaluation of cardiac apex. Korean Circ J. 2013; 43 (10): 702-704.

26.   Lloyd S.G., Buckberg G.D. Use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in surgical ventricular restoration. Eur J of Cardiothoracic Surg. 2006; 216-222.