Keywords:
Cardiac, MR, Echocardiography, Imaging sequences, Ischaemia / Infarction
Authors:
K. Gruszczyńska1, L. Krzych1, K. Golba1, P. Ulbrych2, T. Roleder1, J. Biernat1, M. Deja1, S. Woś1, J. Baron1; 1Katowice/PL, 2Rybnik/PL
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2011/C-0590
Results
The mean values of LV volumes ,
EF and mass revealed by CMR and 2D Echo are presented in Figure 1. Both methods confirmed the strong decline in systolic LV function in evaluated group of patients (mean EF in CMR: 23.5%; in 2D Echo 28.8%).
A moderate to strong correlation between the 2DECHO and CMR measurements in the assesment of LV function was revealed: the highest for EDVi (R2 = 0.73) and ESVi (R2 = 0.69) Figure 2, and the lowest for EF (R2 = 0.21) and LVMi (R2 = 0.20) Figure 3.
The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that both LV volumes were statistically significantly underestimated in the 2DECHO,
as compared to the CMR.
The mean difference between the CMR and 2DECHO was: for EDVi +43.7 ml/m2 (95% CI),
and for ESVi +41.4 ml/m2 (95% CI) Figure 4.
The mean difference between EF measured by CMR and 2DECHO was –5.7% (95% CI).
Figure 5.
For the total range of values,
LVMi was significantly overstimated in the 2DECHO,
as compared to the CMR.
The mean difference between methods was –79.9 g/m2 (95% CI).
Figure 6.
There were noticable proportional errors; in relation to EDVi,
ESVi and LVMi the highest between-method differences were found for the highest measurements and in relation to EF for the lowest values.
The results revealed that the agreement between the 2DECHO and CMR were highly dependent on the magnitude of the measurements and that stronger decline in LV function results in higher differences between methods.