2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Book Chapter: not found
      Heart Valve Disease: State of the Art 

      Evaluation of Patients with Heart Valve Disease

      other
      , ,
      Springer International Publishing

      Read this book at

      Buy book Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable?

          To prospectively compare the agreement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by M-mode echocardiography (echo), 2D echo, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance performed in patients with chronic stable heart failure. It is important to know whether the results of each technique are interchangable, and thereby how the results of large studies in heart failure utilizing one technique can be applied using another. Some studies have compared cardiovascular magnetic resonance with echo or radionuclude ventriculography but few contain patients with heart failure and none have compared these techniques with the current fast breath-hold acquisition cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Fifty two patients with chronic stable heart failure taking part in the CHRISTMAS Study, underwent M-mode echo, 2D echo, radionuclude ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance within 4 weeks. The scans were analysed independently in blinded fashion by a single investigator at three core laboratories. Of the echocardiograms, 86% had sufficient image quality to obtain left ventricular ejection fraction by M-mode method, but only 69% by 2D Simpson's biplane analysis. All 52 patients tolerated the radionuclude ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and all these scans were analysable. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction by M-mode cube method was 39+/-16% and 29+/-15% by Teichholz M-mode method. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction by 2D echo Simpson's biplane was 31+/-10%, by radionuclude ventriculography was 24+/-9% and by cardiovascular magnetic resonance was 30+/-11. All the mean left ventricular ejection fractions by each technique were significantly different from all other techniques (P<0.001), except for cardiovascular magnetic resonance ejection fraction and 2D echo ejection fraction by Simpson's rule (P=0.23). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement encompassing four standard deviations was widest for both cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs cube M-mode echo and cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs Teichholz M-mode echo at 66% each, and was 58% for radionuclude ventriculography vs cube M-mode echo, 44% for cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs Simpson's 2D echo, 39% for radionuclide ventriculography vs Simpson's 2D echo, and smallest at 31% for cardiovascular magnetic resonance-radionuclide ventriculography. Similarly, the end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume by 2D echo and cardiovascular magnetic resonance revealed wide limits of agreement (52 ml to 216 ml and 11 ml to 188 ml, respectively). These results suggest that ejection fraction measurements by various techniques are not interchangeable. The conclusions and recommendations of research studies in heart failure should therefore be interpreted in the context of locally available techniques. In addition, there are very wide variances in volumes and ejection fraction between techniques, which are most marked in comparisons using echocardiography. This suggests that cardiovascular magnetic resonance is the preferred technique for volume and ejection fraction estimation in heart failure patients, because of its 3D approach for non-symmetric ventricles and superior image quality. Copyright 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical and pathophysiological implications of a bicuspid aortic valve.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation and clinical implications of aortic valve calcification measured by electron-beam computed tomography.

              Electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT) is used to measure coronary calcification but not for aortic valve calcification (AVC). Its accuracy, association with aortic stenosis (AS) severity, and diagnostic and prognostic value with respect to AVC are unknown. In 30 explanted aortic valves, the AVC score by EBCT (1125+/-1294 Agatston units [AU]) showed a strong linear correlation (r=0.96, P or =1100 AU provided 93% sensitivity and 82% specificity for diagnosis of severe AS (AVA <1 cm2), with a receiver operator characteristic curve area of 0.89. AVC assessment by echocardiography was often more severe than by EBCT (P<0.0001). During follow-up, 22 patients either died, developed heart failure, or required surgery. With adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, ejection fraction, and AVA, the AVC score was independently predictive of event-free survival (risk ratio 1.06 per 100-AU increment [1.02 to 1.10], P<0.001), even after adjustment for echocardiographic calcifications. AVC is accurately and reproducibly measured by EBCT and shows a strong association and diagnostic value for severe AS. The curvilinear relationship between AVC and AVA suggests these measures are complementary, and indeed, AVC provides independent outcome information. Thus, AVC is an important measurement in the evaluation of patients with AS.
                Bookmark

                Author and book information

                Book Chapter
                2020
                November 13 2019
                : 9-19
                10.1007/978-3-030-23104-0_2
                7c452a77-e8f9-42ac-97c8-6df8b58cb6c4
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this book

                Book chapters

                Similar content3,938