Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Simpson's triplane versus biplane for left ventricle ejection fraction after myocardial infarction
Session:
Posters 5 - Écran 7 - Imagiologia Cardiovascular
Speaker:
Diogo Brás
Congress:
CPC 2019
Topic:
B. Imaging
Theme:
03. Imaging
Subtheme:
03.1 Echocardiography
Session Type:
Posters
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Diogo Brás; Carla Reis; Maria João Andrade; Regina Ribeiras; Miguel Mendes
Abstract
<p>INTRODUCTION</p> <p>Simpson’s biplane (SBP) ignores the apical long-axis plane. It is estimated that 40% of myocardial infarction (MI)-related segmental abnormalities are located in this plane. The real-time triplane (RT3P) overcomes this issue, allowing to obtain all apical views simultaneously, at the same cardiac cycle. This method could be a more precise and reliable alternative to SBP in ejection fraction (EF) quantification in this setting.</p> <p> </p> <p>PURPOSE</p> <p>The authors aimed to compare EF assessed by two quantification methods, SBP and RT3P, using quantitative three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) as the reference method, in patients with MI.</p> <p> </p> <p>METHODS</p> <p>We have prospectively gathered data from 52 adult patients, which had recent or past history of MI. Exclusion criteria were the presence of atrial fibrillation, unknown coronary anatomy, significant valvular disease, left branch block, ventricular pacing and poor definition of endocardial borders.</p> <p>Estimation of EF by SBP, RT3P and 3DE was performed in all patients and gathered by two experienced operators. The two operators were blinded for the coronary angiography results before volume quantification. They were also blinded for their own measurements, as well as for the other operator’s measurements.</p> <p>Spearman’s correlation and linear regression were performed for correlation analysis. Bland-Altman plot was used for agreement assessment among the different methods. Interobserver agreement was assessed by Cohen’s kappa.</p> <p> </p> <p>RESULTS</p> <p>Patient characteristics are shown in table 1. EF calculation was feasible in all patients. EF was 44.6 ± 10.3% by SBP, 47.9 ± 16.6% by RT3P and 46.4 ± 9.9% by 3DE.</p> <p>There were excellent correlations between EF measured by SBP vs 3DE and RT3P vs 3DE (r= 0.813 and r= 0.9 respectively). Linear regression between SBP vs 3DE and RT3P vs 3DE revealed strong agreement (r<sup>2</sup>= 0.82 and r<sup>2</sup>=0.91, respectively).</p> <p>Test of equality between two correlation coefficients confirmed that EF by RT3P method is significantly more correlated with the reference method, compared with EF by SBP (p=0.004).</p> <p>We have also performed a further analysis to study this results in special subsets. In anterior MI subset, EF by RT3P correlated by 0.909 with 3DE, versus 0.826 from EF by SBP (p =0.019). In inferior MI subset, EF by RT3P correlated by 0.779 with the reference method, versus 0.706 from EF by SBP (p =0.246).</p> <p> </p> <p>CONCLUSIONS </p> <p>Estimation of EF using SBP and RT3P methods by experienced operators strongly correlate with EF determined by 3DE. The RT3P method showed the strongest correlation between the two methods, which may point to its usefulness in the evaluation of EF in patients with anterior wall motion abnormalities after myocardial infarction.</p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site