| Popis: |
Abstract Background The use of apical views focused on the left atrium (LA) has improved the accuracy of LA volume evaluation by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. However, routine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) evaluation of LA volumes still uses standard 2- and 4-chamber cine images focused on the left ventricle (LV). To investigate the potential of LA-focused CMR cine images, we compared LA maximuml (LAVmax) and minimum (LAVmin) volumes, and emptying fraction (LAEF), calculated on both standard and LA-focused long-axis cine images, with LA volumes and LAEF obtained by short-axis cine stacks covering the LA. LA strain was also calculated and compared between standard and LA-focused images. Methods LA volumes and LAEF were obtained from 108 consecutive patients by applying the biplane area-length algorithm to both standard and LA-focused 2- and 4-chamber cine images. Manual segmentation of a short-axis cine stack covering the LA was used as the reference method. In addition, LA strain reservoir (εs), conduit (εe) and booster pump (εa) were calculated using CMR feature-tracking. Results Compared to the reference method, the standard approach significantly underestimated LA volumes (LAVmax: bias − 13 ml; LOA = + 11, − 37 ml; LAVmax i: bias − 7 ml/m2; LOA = + 7, − 21 ml/m2; LAVmin; bias − 10 ml, LOA: + 9, − 28 ml; LAVmin i: bias − 5 ml/m2, LOA: + 5, − 16 ml/m2), and overestimated LA-EF (bias 5%, LOA: + 23, − 14%). Conversely, LA volumes (LAVmax: bias 0 ml; LOA: + 10, − 10 ml; LAVmax i: bias 0 ml/m2; LOA: + 5, − 6 ml/m2; LAVmin: bias − 2 ml; LOA: + 7, − 10 ml; LAVmin i: bias − 1 ml/m2; LOA: + 3, − 5 ml/m2) and LAEF (bias 2%, LOA: + 11, − 7%) by LA-focused cine images were similar to those measured using the reference method. LA volumes by LA-focused images were obtained faster than using the reference method (1.2 vs 4.5 min, p |
Full text from SpringerLink