We have located links that may give you full text access.
Diagnostic accuracy and variability of three semi-quantitative methods for assessing right ventricular systolic function from cardiac MRI in patients with acquired heart disease.
European Radiology 2011 October
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and variability of 3 semi-quantitative (SQt) methods for assessing right ventricular (RV) systolic function from cardiac MRI in patients with acquired heart disease: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional-shortening (RVFS) and RV fractional area change (RVFAC).
METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled. Reference RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was determined from short axis cine sequences. TAPSE, RVFS and RVFAC were measured on a 4-chamber cine sequence. All SQt analyses were performed twice by 3 observers with various degrees of training in cardiac MRI. Correlation with RVEF, intra- and inter-observer variability, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed for each SQt method.
RESULTS: Correlation between RVFAC and RVEF was good for all observers and did not depend on previous cardiac MRI experience (R range = 0.716-0.741). Conversely, RVFS (R range = 0.534-0.720) and TAPSE (R range = 0.482-0.646) correlated less with RVEF and depended on previous experience. Intra- and inter-observer variability was much lower for RVFAC than for RVFS and TAPSE. ROC analysis demonstrated that RVFAC <41% could predict a RVEF <45% with 90% sensitivity and 94% specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: RVFAC appears to be more accurate and reproducible than RVFS and TAPSE for SQt assessment of RV function by cardiac MRI.
METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled. Reference RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was determined from short axis cine sequences. TAPSE, RVFS and RVFAC were measured on a 4-chamber cine sequence. All SQt analyses were performed twice by 3 observers with various degrees of training in cardiac MRI. Correlation with RVEF, intra- and inter-observer variability, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed for each SQt method.
RESULTS: Correlation between RVFAC and RVEF was good for all observers and did not depend on previous cardiac MRI experience (R range = 0.716-0.741). Conversely, RVFS (R range = 0.534-0.720) and TAPSE (R range = 0.482-0.646) correlated less with RVEF and depended on previous experience. Intra- and inter-observer variability was much lower for RVFAC than for RVFS and TAPSE. ROC analysis demonstrated that RVFAC <41% could predict a RVEF <45% with 90% sensitivity and 94% specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: RVFAC appears to be more accurate and reproducible than RVFS and TAPSE for SQt assessment of RV function by cardiac MRI.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app