Why the study?
Does 64-slice MDCT provide comparable results to 2D-TTE for assessing LVEF and regional wall motion in patients with various cardiac conditions?
Does 64-slice MDCT provide comparable results to 2D-TTE for assessing LVEF and regional wall motion in patients with various cardiac conditions?
64-slice MDCT is a reliable alternative to 2D-TTE for assessing left ventricular ejection fraction and regional wall motion.
MDCT correlates well with TTE for LVEF and wall motion; leaves open prospective validation before clinical substitution.
The aim of this study was to compare the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and regional wall motion using 64-slice multidetector CT (MDCT) with that using two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D-TTE) in a heterogeneous patient population. In 126 patients with angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, chronic myocardial infarction, atypical chest pain without coronary artery disease or valvular heart disease, 64-slice MDCT was performed using retrospective electrocardiography gating without dose modulation. 20 phases of the cardiac cycle were analysed to identify the end-diastolic and end-systolic phases and to assess regional LV wall motion. For these measurements, 2D-TTE served as the reference standard. MDCT and 2D-TTE were performed within 10 days of each other. An excellent correlation between MDCT and 2D-TTE was shown for the evaluation of LVEF (59.2+/-11% vs 57.9+/-10%, respectively; r = 0.87). LVEF was slightly overestimated by MDCT, when compared with 2D-TTE, by an average of 1.4+/-5.6%. Good agreement was obtained between the use of the two techniques, with 94% of the segments scored identically on both modalities (kappa = 0.70). MDCT had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 82% when compared with 2D-TTE as the reference standard. In conclusion, the use of 64-slice MDCT can provide comparable results to those using 2D-TTE for LVEF and regional wall motion assessment in a heterogeneous population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ko et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: