Why the study?
How do different radionuclide imaging methods compare in measuring right and left ventricular ejection fractions in normal subjects and post-myocardial infarction patients?
How do different radionuclide imaging methods compare in measuring right and left ventricular ejection fractions in normal subjects and post-myocardial infarction patients?
Dual first-pass radionuclide imaging provides more accurate RVEF measurements than traditional methods, revealing that RVEF and LVEF are equal in normal subjects and differentially affected after acute myocardial infarction.
Dual first-pass imaging identifies isolated RV dysfunction in 8% of post-AMI patients; supports further validation of biventricular assessment but leaves practice unchanged.
Right and left ventricular ejection fractions (RVEF and LVEF) were determined by radionuclide imaging in 37 normal subjects and 37 patients by means of (1) the traditional way of calculating ejection fraction from first-pass time-activity curves of each ventricle generated from a single fixed ventricular region of interest, (2) dual first-pass time-activity curves generated from the end-diastolic and end-systolic regions, respectively, and (3) the multigated equilibrium method, also applying separate regions in end-diastole and end-systole for each ventricle. Values for RVEF measured by method 2 were significantly higher than values obtained by methods 1 and 3. In normal subjects, the values for RVEF measured by method 2 were equal to the values for LVEF determined by either this method or the equilibrium technique. Methods 1 and 3 had a tendency for underestimation of RVEF, probably because of inclusion of right atrial activity into the right ventricular region of interest. Methods 2 and 3 were applied to measure RVEF and LVEF, respectively, in 153 patients in the second week after first acute myocardial infarction. Among these, 25% had normal ejection fractions, 47% had a decrease in only LVEF, 8% a decrease in only RVEF, and 20% a decrease in both RVEF and LVEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marving et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: