Key result
Using RV instead of LV end-systolic MRI frames increases calculated RVEF by ~3% in ToF.
Why the study?
Cardiac MRI measurements of RV volumes using LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frames may misrepresent RV volumes in patients with tetralogy of Fallot and right bundle branch block.
Does using the RV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame instead of the LV frame alter the measurement of RV volumes and ejection fraction in patients with tetralogy of Fallot?
Cross-Sectional (n=115)
Does using the RV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame instead of the LV frame alter the measurement of RV volumes and ejection fraction in patients with tetralogy of Fallot?
Absolute Event Rate: 48% vs 45%
p-value: p=<0.001
In patients with tetralogy of Fallot and right bundle branch block, RV volumes and ejection fraction should be measured using the RV end-systolic frame rather than the LV frame due to delayed RV systole.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate to what extent cardiac MRI derived measurements of right ventricular (RV) volumes using the left ventricular (LV) end-systolic and end-diastolic frame misrepresent RV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) and a right bundle branch block. METHODS: Sixty-five cardiac MRI scans of patients with ToF and a right bundle branch block, and 50 cardiac MRI scans of control subjects were analyzed. RV volumes and function using the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame of the RV were compared to using the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame of the LV. RESULTS: Timing of the RV end-systolic frame was delayed compared to the LV end-systolic frame in 94% of patients with ToF and in 50% of control subjects. RV end-systolic volume using the RV end-systolic instead of LV end-systolic frame was smaller in ToF (median -3.3 ml/m(2), interquartile range -1.9 to -5.6 ml/m(2); p<0.001) and close to unchanged in control subjects. Using the RV instead of LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame hardly affected RV end-diastolic volumes in both groups and ejection fraction in control subjects (54±4%, both methods), while increasing ejection fraction from 45±7% to 48±7% for patients with ToF (p<0.001). QRS duration correlated positively with the changes in the RV end-systolic volume (p<0.001) and RV ejection fraction obtained in ToF patients when using the RV instead of the LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frame (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: For clinical decision making in ToF patients RV volumes derived from cardiac MRI should be measured in the end-systolic frame of the RV instead of the LV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Freling et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Tetralogy of Fallot with a right bundle branch block (n=115). RV volume measurement using RV end-systolic and end-diastolic frames vs. RV volume measurement using LV end-systolic and end-diastolic frames was evaluated on Right ventricular ejection fraction in patients with ToF (p=<0.001). Measuring cardiac MRI volumes using the RV instead of LV end-systolic frame in patients with Tetralogy of Fallot increased calculated RV ejection fraction from 45% to 48% (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: