Cargando…
Three Dimensional (3D) Echocardiography as a Tool of Left Ventricular Assessment in Children with Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Comparison to Cardiac MRI
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) is Strong prognostic indicators for DCM. Cardiac MRI (CMRI) is a preferred technique for LV volumes and EF assessment due to high spatial resolution and complete volumetric datasets. Three-dimensional echocardiography is a promisin...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Republic of Macedonia
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6311485/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30607182 http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.270 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) is Strong prognostic indicators for DCM. Cardiac MRI (CMRI) is a preferred technique for LV volumes and EF assessment due to high spatial resolution and complete volumetric datasets. Three-dimensional echocardiography is a promising new technique under investigations. AIM: Evaluate 3D echocardiography as a tool in LV assessment in DCM children about CMRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A group of 20 DCM children (LVdiastolic diameter < 2 Z score, LVEF < 35%) at Children s Hospital, Ain-Shams University (gp1) (mean age 6.6 years) were compared to 20 age and sex-matched children as controls (gp2). Patients were subjected to: clinical examination, conventional echocardiography, automated 3D LV quantification, 3D speckle tracking echocardiography (3D-STE) (VIVID E9 Vingmed, Norway) and CMRI (Philips Achieva Nova, 1.5 Tesla scanner) for LV end systolic volume (LVESV), LVend diastolic volume (LVEDV) that were indexed to body surface area, EF% and wall motion abnormalities assessment. RESUTS: No statistically significant difference was found between automated 3D LV quantification echocardiography, 3D-STE, and CMRI in ESV/BSA and EDV/BSA assessment (p = 1, 0.99 respectively), between automated LV quantification echocardiography and CMRI in EF% assessment (p = 0.99) and between CMRI and 3D-STE in LV Global hypokinesia detection (P = 0.255). As for segmental hypokinesia CMRI was more sensitive [45% of patients vs. 40%, (P = 0,036), basal septal hypokinesia 85% vs. 75%, (p = 0.045), mid septal hypokinesia 80% vs. 65%, (p = 0.012) and lateral wall hypokinesia 75% vs. 65%, (p = 0.028)]. CONCLUSION: Automated 3D LV quantification echocardiography and 3D-STE are reliable tools in LV volumetric and systolic function assessment about CMRIas a standard method. 3D speckle echocardiography is comparable to CMRI in global wall hypokinesia detection but less sensitive in segmental wall hypokinesia which mandates further studies. |
---|