Key result
Magnetic resonance elastography-measured effective myocardial stiffness showed good correlation with left ventricular pressure (R2 = 0.84) in an in vivo pig model.
Why the study?
Does magnetic resonance elastography accurately estimate effective myocardial stiffness compared to left ventricular chamber pressure in an in vivo pig model?
Population
6 pigs (in vivo pig model)
Comparison
Magnetic resonance elastography with six… vs Left ventricular chamber pressure and…
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Hypothesis-generating for noninvasive stiffness assessment in animal models; leaves open human validation.
Does magnetic resonance elastography accurately estimate effective myocardial stiffness compared to left ventricular chamber pressure in an in vivo pig model?
Effect estimate: R2 = 0.84
Magnetic resonance elastography shows potential as a noninvasive method for estimating effective myocardial stiffness throughout the cardiac cycle, correlating well with invasive left ventricular pressure.
Kolipaka et al. (2010) studied Normal myocardium (n=6). Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) vs. Left ventricular chamber pressure was evaluated on Correlation between MRE-measured effective stiffness and left ventricular pressure (R2 = 0.84). Magnetic resonance elastography-measured effective myocardial stiffness showed good correlation with left ventricular pressure (R2 = 0.84) in an in vivo pig model.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: