Key result
MDCT demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the reference standard CMR tools for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (r=0.702, p<0.001), outperforming 2D echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) accurately measure left ventricular function compared to cardiac MRI in patients undergoing coronary evaluation?
Cross-Sectional (n=40)
No
Does multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) accurately measure left ventricular function compared to cardiac MRI in patients undergoing coronary evaluation?
Cardiac MDCT provides reliable left ventricular functional analysis with stronger correlation to MRI than 2D echocardiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
MDCT may aid EF assessment during coronary CT; leaves open prospective validation against CMR before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the left ventricular parameters obtained from multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) studies with two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is accepted as the gold standard in the evaluation of left ventricular functions. The study also aimed to evaluate whether or not there is a relationship between the MR-Argus and CMR tools software programs which are used in post-process calculations of data obtained by MRI. MATERIAL/METHODS: Forty patients with an average age of 51.4±14.9 years who had been scanned with cardiac MDCT were evaluated with cardiac MRI and 2DE. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), ejection fraction (EF), cardiac output (CO), and myocardial mass values calculated by MDCT, MRI, and 2DE were compared with each other. Two different MR software programs were used to compare left ventricular functions. The CMR tools LV tutorials method is accepted as the gold standard because it can be used in three-dimensional functional evaluation. The Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to compare the results from the two MR methods (MR-Argus and CMR tools) and the results from both the MDCT and the 2DE with the CMR tools results. RESULTS: Strong positive correlations for EF values were found between the MDCT and CMR tools (r=0.702 p<0.001), and between the MR-Argus and CMR tools (r=0.746 p<0.001). The correlation between the 2DE and CMR tools (r=0.449 p<0.004), however, was only moderate. Similar results were obtained for the other parameters. The strongest correlation for ESV, EDV, and EF was between the two MR software programs. The correlation coefficient between the MDCT and CMR tools is close to the correlation coefficient between the two software programs. While the correlation between 2DE and CMR tools was satisfactory for ESV, EDV, and CO values, it was at a moderate level for the other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular functional analysis can be performed easily and reliably with cardiac MDCT used for coronary artery evaluation and it also gives more accurate results than 2DE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kara et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in Known or suspected coronary artery disease (n=40). Multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) vs. Cardiac MRI (CMR tools) and 2D echocardiography was evaluated on Correlation of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) between MDCT and CMR tools (r=0.702, p=<0.001). MDCT demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the reference standard CMR tools for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (r=0.702, p<0.001), outperforming 2D echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: