Cardiac MRI and radionuclide ventriculography for measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction in ICD candidates

Vamshi K. Kotha,Djeven P. Deva, Kim A. Connelly,Michael R. Freeman, Raymond T. Yan,Iqwal Mangat, Anish Kirpalani,Joseph J. Barfett, Joanna Sloninko, Hui Ming Lin,John J. Graham, Andrew M. Crean,Laura Jimenez-Juan, Paul Dorian,Andrew T. Yan

Magnetic Resonance Imaging(2018)

引用 3|浏览47
暂无评分
摘要
Objective Current guidelines provide left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) criterion for use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) but do not specify which modality to use for measurement. We compared LVEF measurements by radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) vs cardiac MRI (CMR) in ICD candidates to assess impact on clinical decision making. Methods This single-centre study included 124 consecutive patients referred for assessment of ICD implantation who underwent RNV and CMR within 30 days for LVEF measurement. RNV and CMR were interpreted independently by experienced readers. Results Among 124 patients (age 64 ± 11 years, 77% male), median interval between CMR and RNV was 1 day; mean LVEF was 32 ± 12% by CMR and 33 ± 11% by RNV (p = 0.60). LVEF by CMR and RNV showed good correlation, but Bland-Altman analysis showed relatively wide limits of agreement (−12.1 to 11.4). CMR LVEF reclassified 26 (21%) patients compared to RNV LVEF (kappa = 0.58). LVEF by both modalities showed good interobserver reproducibility (ICC 0.96 and 0.94, respectively) (limits of agreement −7.27 to 5.75 and −8.63 to 6.34, respectively). Conclusion Although LVEF measurements by CMR and RNV show moderate agreement, there is frequent reclassification of patients for ICD placement based on LVEF between these modalities. Future studies should determine if a particular imaging modality for LVEF measurement may enhance ICD decision making and treatment benefit.
更多
查看译文
关键词
Cardiac MRI,Radionuclide ventriculography,Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要