Why the study?
Does bidimensional echocardiography differ from conventional M-mode in evaluating the left atrium in healthy dogs?
Does bidimensional echocardiography differ from conventional M-mode in evaluating the left atrium in healthy dogs?
In healthy dogs, the bidimensional echocardiographic method yields a larger left atrial measurement and a higher LA:Ao index compared to conventional M-mode.
2D LA:Ao exceeds M-mode values in healthy dogs; leaves open modality-specific reference ranges before clinical use.
The left atrium (LA) was evaluated through the bidimensional method (2-D) (short axis) and the relation left atrium:aorta (LA:Ao) in a group of 40 healthy adult dogs between 1.5 and 7 years of age and weights ranging from 3.2 to 38.3kg, and these values were compared to those in the conventional M-mode. Comparing the variable LA and Ao with the two methods and their respective indexes, significant statistical difference was observed (P<0,001), high positive correlation between the weight and LA-2D and LAM, between body surface and LA-2D and LAM. A difference between LA and Ao in both methods and these respective indicators were observed. The association was higly positive between weight and body surface area (BSA) and between M- mode LA (LAM) and 2-D mode LA (LA-2D). No correlation was observed between these indicators and weight and BSA, in both methods, so these indicators are weight and BSA-independent. Conclusions: LA-2D is bigger than LAM, the LA-2D:Ao-2D average index is 1,379 and the confidence interval is 1,337 to 1,422. The index in the 2-D method is, therefore, superior to the index in the M-mode.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prada et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: