Left ventricular ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation assessment: A comparison study between echocardiography and angiography

A. Mirdamadi, Negah Tavakolifard, Ehsan Ebrahimi
{"title":"Left ventricular ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation assessment: A comparison study between echocardiography and angiography","authors":"A. Mirdamadi, Negah Tavakolifard, Ehsan Ebrahimi","doi":"10.4103/ACVI.ACVI_7_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a common tool for evaluating the left ventricle (LV) systolic function. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the LVEF and mitral regurgitation (MR) severity as estimated by angiography and echocardiography in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and LV systolic dysfunction. Methods: In this observational study, 39 men and 11 women at a mean age of 60 years were recruited. The patients underwent catheterization and echocardiography, and the data on the LVEF and MR by both methods were registered. Results: The mean LVEF by echocardiography and angiography was significantly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.698; P < 0.0001). Although there was agreement between these methods in the estimation of the mean EF (mean difference in the LVEF = 1.23 ± 7.63% and 95% limit of agreement = −12.5–19) and the κ coefficient was 45.7% (P = 0.001), the estimated mean EF was 32.6 ± 10.25% by echocardiography and 29.8 ± 8.2% by angiography (P = 0.007). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference in the estimated MR severity between the two methods (P = 0.0001), with echocardiography reporting higher degrees of severity than angiography. Conclusions: In our patients with CAD and LV systolic dysfunction, after the exclusion of age, sex, number of diseased coronary arteries, and myocardial infarction history from the analysis, although the mean LVEF by echocardiography and angiography was significantly correlated, echocardiography estimated higher LVEF values than angiography, especially in the patients with triple-vessel disease. Moreover, echocardiography showed higher degrees of MR severity than angiography.","PeriodicalId":429543,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Cardiovascular Imaging","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Cardiovascular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ACVI.ACVI_7_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a common tool for evaluating the left ventricle (LV) systolic function. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the LVEF and mitral regurgitation (MR) severity as estimated by angiography and echocardiography in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and LV systolic dysfunction. Methods: In this observational study, 39 men and 11 women at a mean age of 60 years were recruited. The patients underwent catheterization and echocardiography, and the data on the LVEF and MR by both methods were registered. Results: The mean LVEF by echocardiography and angiography was significantly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.698; P < 0.0001). Although there was agreement between these methods in the estimation of the mean EF (mean difference in the LVEF = 1.23 ± 7.63% and 95% limit of agreement = −12.5–19) and the κ coefficient was 45.7% (P = 0.001), the estimated mean EF was 32.6 ± 10.25% by echocardiography and 29.8 ± 8.2% by angiography (P = 0.007). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference in the estimated MR severity between the two methods (P = 0.0001), with echocardiography reporting higher degrees of severity than angiography. Conclusions: In our patients with CAD and LV systolic dysfunction, after the exclusion of age, sex, number of diseased coronary arteries, and myocardial infarction history from the analysis, although the mean LVEF by echocardiography and angiography was significantly correlated, echocardiography estimated higher LVEF values than angiography, especially in the patients with triple-vessel disease. Moreover, echocardiography showed higher degrees of MR severity than angiography.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
左心室射血分数和二尖瓣返流评估:超声心动图和血管造影的比较研究
简介:测量左心室射血分数(LVEF)是评估左心室(LV)收缩功能的常用工具。本研究的目的是评估和比较冠状动脉疾病(CAD)和左室收缩功能障碍患者通过血管造影和超声心动图估计的LVEF和二尖瓣反流(MR)严重程度。方法:在这项观察性研究中,招募了39名男性和11名女性,平均年龄为60岁。患者行导管置管和超声心动图,记录两种方法的LVEF和MR数据。结果:超声心动图与血管造影的平均LVEF有显著相关(相关系数= 0.698;P < 0.0001)。虽然两种方法对平均EF的估计一致(LVEF的平均差值= 1.23±7.63%,95%一致限= - 12.5-19),κ系数为45.7% (P = 0.001),但超声心动图估计的平均EF为32.6±10.25%,血管造影估计的平均EF为29.8±8.2% (P = 0.007)。此外,两种方法估计的MR严重程度有统计学意义差异(P = 0.0001),超声心动图报告的严重程度高于血管造影。结论:在我们的CAD合并左室收缩功能障碍患者中,在分析中排除年龄、性别、病变冠状动脉数目、心肌梗死史等因素后,虽然超声心动图与血管造影的平均LVEF有显著相关性,但超声心动图估测的LVEF值高于血管造影,尤其是三支血管病变患者。此外,超声心动图显示MR严重程度高于血管造影。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Noninvasive Assessment of Coronary Flow Reserve Before and After Ranolazine Administration: Does It Improve in Our Real Patients? Postpartum Inverted Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy After Intravenous Atropine Administration Heart Failure in a Case of Inverted Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy due to Cocaine and Methamphetamine Abuse Treated with Levosimendan Strain Echocardiography Immediately Before Acute Left Ventricular Rupture Following Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction Isolated congenital left ventricular diverticula: A rare cardiac anomaly
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1