Why the study?
How does magnetic resonance imaging compare to conductance catheter for assessing left ventricular function in a murine post-infarct heart failure model?
How does magnetic resonance imaging compare to conductance catheter for assessing left ventricular function in a murine post-infarct heart failure model?
Both MRI and conductance catheter are valuable for evaluating LV function in murine MI models, with MRI offering superior sensitivity, specificity, and absolute volume accuracy, while CC provides high temporal resolution and energetics.
AIM: Murine myocardial infarction (MI) models are increasingly used in heart failure studies. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pressure-volume loops by conductance catheter (CC) enable physiological phenotyping. We performed a comparative analysis of MRI vs. CC to assess left ventricular (LV) function in the failing mouse heart. METHODS: MI was created by LAD ligation. MRI (day 14) and CC (day 15) were used to determine LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF). RESULTS: Pooled data yielded moderate-to-strong linear correlations: EDV: R = 0.61; ESV: R = 0.72; EF: R = 0.81. We analysed three groups, no MI (sham, n = 10), small MI (<30% of LV, n = 14) and large MI (>30%, n = 20). Volumes and EF were consistently lower by CC than by MRI, but group differences were evident for both techniques. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis indicated good sensitivity and specificity for both techniques, with superior results for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: CC and MRI are highly valuable for evaluation of LV volume and function. MRI is recommended for longitudinal studies, accurate absolute volumes and anatomical information. Unique features of CC are its online signal with high temporal resolution, and advanced analysis of LV function and energetics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Winter et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: