...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The American Journal of Cardiology >Quantitative Evaluation of Mitral Regurgitation Secondary to Mitral Valve Prolapse by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography
【24h】

Quantitative Evaluation of Mitral Regurgitation Secondary to Mitral Valve Prolapse by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography

机译：磁共振成像和超声心动图定量评估二尖瓣脱垂继发的二尖瓣关闭不全

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The present prospective study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative assessment of mitral regurgitant fraction (MRF) by echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) in the modern era using as reference method the blinded multiparametric integrative assessment of mitral regurgitation (MR) severity. 2-Dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) MRF by echocardiography,(2D echo MRF and 3D echo MRF) were obtained by measuring the difference in left ventricular (LV) total stroke volume (obtained from either 2D or 3D acquisition) and aortic forward stroke volume normalized to LV total stroke volume. MRF was calculated by cMRI using either (1) (LV stroke volume - systolic aortic outflow volume by phase contrast)/LV stroke volume (cMRI MRF [volumetric]) or (2) (mitral inflow volume - systolic aortic outflow volume)/mitral inflow volume (cMRI MRF [phase contrast]). Six patients had 1 + MR, 6 patients had 2 + MR, 12 patients had 3 + MR, and 10 had 4 + MR. A significant correlation was observed between MR grading and 2D echo MRF (r = 0.60, p < 0.0001) and 3D echo MRF (r = 0.79, p < 0.0001), cMRI MRF (volumetric) (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001), and cMRI MRF (phase contrast r = 0.72, p < 0.001). The accuracy of MRF for the diagnosis of MR >= 3 + or 4+ was the highest with cMRI MRF (volumetric) (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.98), followed by 3D echo MRF (AUC = 0.96), 2D echo MRF (AUC = 0.90), and cMRI MRF (phase contrast; AUC = 0.83). In conclusion, MRF by cMRI (volumetric method) and 3D echo MRF had the highest diagnostic value to detect significant MR, whereas the diagnostic value of 2D echo MRF and cMRI MRF (phase contrast) was lower. Hence, the present study suggests that both cMRI (volumetric method) and 3D echo represent best approaches for calculating MRF. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译：本前瞻性研究旨在评估以现代超声心动图和心脏磁共振成像（cMRI）对二尖瓣反流分数（MRF）进行定量评估的准确性，该方法以二尖瓣反流（MR）严重程度的多盲综合评估为参考方法。通过测量左心室（LV）总搏动量的差异（通过2D或3D采集获得），通过超声心动图进行2维（2D）和3维（3D）MRF（2D回波MRF和3D回波MRF）和主动脉前搏量归一化为LV总搏量。通过cMRI使用（1）（LV搏动量-收缩期主动脉流出量通过相差）/ LV搏动量（cMRI MRF [体积]）或（2）（二尖瓣流入量-收缩主动脉流出量）/二尖瓣来计算MRF流入量（cMRI MRF [相衬]）。 6例患者具有1 + MR，6例患者具有2 + MR，12例患者具有3 + MR，10例具有4 + MR。在MR分级与2D回波MRF（r = 0.60，p <0.0001）和3D回波MRF（r = 0.79，p <0.0001），cMRI MRF（体积）（r = 0.87，p <0.0001）之间观察到显着相关性， cMRI MRF（相衬r = 0.72，p <0.001）。用cMRI MRF（体积）（在接收器工作特征曲线下的面积[AUC] = 0.98），然后是3D回波MRF（AUC = 0.96），MRF诊断MR> = 3 +或4+的准确性最高。 ），二维回波MRF（AUC = 0.90）和cMRI MRF（相衬; AUC = 0.83）。总之，通过cMRI（体积法）和3D回波MRF进行的MRF诊断显着MR的诊断价值最高，而2D回波MRF和cMRI MRF（相差）的诊断价值较低。因此，本研究表明cMRI（体积法）和3D回波代表了计算MRF的最佳方法。 （C）2015 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号