摘要
Objectives To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined from 64-row multi-detector computed tomography (64-row MDCT) with those determined from two dimensional echocardiography (2D echo) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Methods Thirty-two patients with coronary artery disease underwent trans-thoracic 2D echo, CMR and contrast-enhanced 64-row MDCT for assessment of LVEF within 48 hours of each other. 64-row MDCT LVEF was derived using the Syngo Circulation software; CMR LVEF was by Area Length Ejection Fraction (ALEF) and Simpson method and 2D echo LVEF by Simpson method.Results The LVEF was 49.13 ± 15.91% by 2D echo, 50.72 ± 16.55% (ALEF method) and 47.65 ± 16.58%(Simpson method) by CMR and 50.00 ± 15.93% by 64-row MDCT. LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured with CMR using either the ALEF method (Pearson correlation r = 0.94, P ＜0.01) or Simpson method (r = 0.92, P＜0.01). It also correlated well with LVEF measured using 2D echo (r = 0.80, P ＜ 0.01). Conclusion LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured by CMR and 2D echo. The correlation between 64-row MDCT and CMR was better than the correlation between 2D echo with CMR. Standard data set from a 64-row MDCT coronary study can be reliably used to calculate the LVEF.
Objectives To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined from 64-row multi-detector computed tomography (64-row MDCT) with those determined from two dimensional echocardiography (2D echo) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Methods Thirty-two patients with coronary artery disease underwent trans-thoracic 2D echo, CMR and contrast-enhanced 64-row MDCT for assessment of LVEF within 48 hours of each other. 64-row MDCT LVEF was derived using the Syngo Circulation software; CMR LVEF was by Area Length Ejection Fraction (ALEF) and Simpson method and 2D echo LVEF by Simpson method. Results The LVEF was 49.13±15.91 % by 2D echo, 50.72±16.55% (ALEF method) and 47.65±16.58%(Simpson method) by CMR and 50.00±15.93% by 64-row MDCT. LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured with CMR using either the ALEF method (Pearson correlation r = 0.94, P <0.01) or Simpson method (r = 0.92, P<0.01). It also correlated well with LVEF measured using 2D echo (r = 0.80, P < 0.01). Conclusion LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured by CMR and 2D echo. The correlation between 64-row MDCT and CMR was better than the correlation between 2D echo with CMR. Standard data set from a 64-row MDCT coronary study can be reliably used to calculate the LVEF. (J Geriatr Cardiol 2006;3(1): 2-8)
