Key result
Phase contrast CMR shows no difference from the volumetric method for estimating LVEF.
Why the study?
Does the phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance method accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction compared to the volumetric method in healthy patients?
Observational (n=10)
Does the phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance method accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction compared to the volumetric method in healthy patients?
Phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance is a valid alternative method for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Findings in 10 healthy volunteers should not change LVEF methods; leaves open validation of phase-contrast CMR in patients.
BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) function is one of the most important prognostic factors for the evaluation of cardiac disorders, whether managed medically or surgically. This makes the LV ejection fraction (EF) the most frequently used clinical parameter of the LV function and gives important data that can be useful in the selection of therapy or determination of the best time for an intervention. AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the phase contrast (PC) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) method in the estimation of LV EF. Patients and methodsThis is a prospective study performed between January 2017 and December 2018. The studied group included 10 healthy patients. All patients underwent CMR scan to evaluate EF by two methods: volumetric method which assesses stroke volume (SV) via subtraction of end-systolic volume from end-diastolic volume, and PC method which assesses the aortic (SV) through-plane PC across the aortic valve. The recorded SV were compared between the two methods. ResultsBy the volumetric method, the estimated mean EF was 62.44 ± 6.61, while that estimated by the PC method was 64.34 ± 5.33, with a nonsignificant difference (P = 0.62) and it shows the validity of the PC method. ConclusionValidity of the PC CMR in the evaluation of EF as an alternative assessment method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sayed et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=10). Phase contrast (PC) cardiac magnetic resonance vs. Volumetric method cardiac magnetic resonance was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (p=0.62). Phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance estimated a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 64.34%, showing no significant difference compared to 62.44% by the volumetric method (P=0.62).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: