Key result
In patients with previous myocardial infarction, stroke volume derived from frontal views differed significantly from lateral views (76.7 vs 51.5 ml, P<0.001), causing systematic errors in single-plane estimates.
Why the study?
The presence and magnitude of asymmetry of left ventricular contraction in patients with previous myocardial infarction could be determined from volume and dimensional characteristics derived independently from frontal and lateral cineangiogram views.
Does single plane cineangiography accurately estimate stroke volume and ejection fraction in patients with previous myocardial infarction compared to biplane cineangiography?
Observational (n=38)
Does single plane cineangiography accurately estimate stroke volume and ejection fraction in patients with previous myocardial infarction compared to biplane cineangiography?
Absolute Event Rate: 76.7% vs 51.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Single plane cineangiograms introduce systematic errors in estimating stroke volume and ejection fraction in patients with previous myocardial infarction due to asymmetric left ventricular contraction.
Biplane cineangiography may identify post-MI LV contraction asymmetry; leaves open its diagnostic or prognostic value.
The possibility was considered that the presence and magnitude of asymmetry of left ventricular (LV) contraction in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) could be determined from volume and dimensional characteristics of contraction derived independently from the frontal (AP) and lateral (LAT) views of biplane cineangiograms. Accordingly, regression analyses were determined from biplane cineangiograms in 18 patients without MI to compute end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes in the AP and LAT views (V biplane = 1.03V calc AP-7.7 ml, r = 0.989, SEE = 8.7 ml; V biplane = 0.85V calc LAT+5.9 ml, r = 0.99, SEE = 8.2 ml). Comparative measurements of EDV, stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) in these patients were identical in AP and LAT films, with a small random error (EDV AP = 136.7 ± 13.0 ml; EDV LAT = 136.7 ± 13.4 ml; SEE for SV = ± 13.0 ml ( ± 16%), SEE for EF= ± 0.03 ( ± 5%). In 20 patients with MI EDVs calculated from AP and LAT films were also identical (189.9 ± 18.1 ml and 184.2 ± 17.1 ml, respectively). However, SV exhibited substantial variation between the two views (SV AP = 76.7 ± 5.5 ml and SV LAT = 51.5 ± 4.7 ml, P < 0.001), as did EF (EF AP = 0.45 ± 0.03 and EF LAT = 0.31 ± 0.03, P < 0.001). In addition, directly measured extent of LV minor circumferential shortening was comparable in AP and LAT films in patients without MI (5.15 ± 0.50 cm and 5.25 ± 0.47 cm, respectively), while in patients with MI these measurements differed significantly (4.74 ± 0.41 cm and 2.73 ± 0.31 cm, respectively; P < 0.001). It is concluded that a systematic error will result when estimates of SV and EF, as well as mean circumferential fiber shortening rate, are derived from single plane cineangiograms in patients with MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gentzler et al. (1973) conducted an observational in Previous myocardial infarction (n=38). Frontal (AP) view cineangiogram vs. Lateral (LAT) view cineangiogram was evaluated on Stroke volume (SV) in patients with previous MI (p=<0.001). In patients with previous myocardial infarction, stroke volume derived from frontal views differed significantly from lateral views (76.7 vs 51.5 ml, P<0.001), causing systematic errors in single-plane estimates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: