Key result
2D echocardiography and LV angiography showed total agreement in segmental wall motion in 61% of segments, while M-mode echocardiography and angiography agreed in 59%.
Why the study?
How does regional left ventricular wall motion assessment by M-mode and 2D echocardiography compare to LV angiography in patients with recent myocardial infarction?
Population
50 patients with a recent myocardial infarction
Comparison
M-mode and cross-sectional (2D) echocardiography vs Left ventricular (LV) angiography
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Caution against interchangeable use of echo and angiography for post-MI wall motion; challenges assumptions of equivalence.
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
How does regional left ventricular wall motion assessment by M-mode and 2D echocardiography compare to LV angiography in patients with recent myocardial infarction?
2D and M-mode echocardiography show moderate agreement (approximately 60%) with LV angiography for assessing regional wall motion in patients with recent myocardial infarction.
Lindvall et al. (1984) conducted a cross-sectional in Recent myocardial infarction (n=50). 2D and M-mode echocardiography vs. Left ventricular angiography was evaluated on Total agreement in segmental wall motion grading. 2D echocardiography and LV angiography showed total agreement in segmental wall motion in 61% of segments, while M-mode echocardiography and angiography agreed in 59%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: