AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dogan, H.
Right arrow Articles by de Roos, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dogan, H.
Right arrow Articles by de Roos, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

MDCT Assessment of Right Ventricular Systolic Function

Halil Dogan1, Lucia J. M. Kroft1, Jeroen J. Bax2, Joanne D. Schuijf2, Rob J. van der Geest1, Joost Doornbos1 and Albert de Roos1

1 Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, C2-S, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
2 Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.


Figure 1
View larger version (89K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1A —Example of cardiac function analysis in 63-year-old woman. MDCT axial reconstructed 2-mm slices at end-diastolic (A) and end-systolic (B) phases with border contours drawn in contrast-enhanced right ventricle and left ventricle.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (91K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1B —Example of cardiac function analysis in 63-year-old woman. MDCT axial reconstructed 2-mm slices at end-diastolic (A) and end-systolic (B) phases with border contours drawn in contrast-enhanced right ventricle and left ventricle.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (92K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1C —Example of cardiac function analysis in 63-year-old woman. Three-dimensional representations of end-diastolic volumes (C) and end-systolic volumes (D). Ant = anterior, Post = posterior.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (91K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1D —Example of cardiac function analysis in 63-year-old woman. Three-dimensional representations of end-diastolic volumes (C) and end-systolic volumes (D). Ant = anterior, Post = posterior.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2A —Graphs of data. Graph shows relationship of stroke volumes between both ventricles as determined by MDCT: excellent slope of trend line (1.00) and excellent correlation (r = 0.97) (p < 0.0001). RVSV = right ventricular stroke volume, LVSV = left ventricular stroke volume.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2B —Graphs of data. Graph shows relationship of MDCT and echocardiography assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): slope of 0.92 and correlation coefficient (r) of 0.89 (p < 0.0001).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3A —Bland-Altman plots. Difference ({Delta}) in stroke volumes (SVs) between left ventricle (LV) and right ventricle (RV) is plotted against average value of SVs of both ventricles (solid line = mean value of differences, dotted lines = mean value of differences ± 2 SD). Difference in SVs does not vary in any systematic way over range of measurements. Mean difference to prejudice RVSV is 3.6 ± 4.0 mL (range, -4.4 to 11.6 mL) as compared with LVSV.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3B —Bland-Altman plots. Difference ({Delta}) in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) between each pair—MDCT-derived LVEF and echocardiographically derived LVEF—is plotted against average value of sample pair (solid line = mean value of differences, dotted lines = mean value of differences ± 2 SD). Difference in LVEF does not vary in any systematic way over range of measurements. Mean difference is 3.3% ± 5.8% (range, -8.2% to 14.8%) to prejudice of average LVEF of echocardiography.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.