• Users Online: 284
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 136-139

Validity of the phase-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance in the estimation of the left ventricular ejection fraction


1 Department of Radiodiagnosis, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
3 Department of Radiodiagnosis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Abdulrahman E. E. Sayed
Radiodiagnosis Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut 71111
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_127_18

Rights and Permissions

Background Left ventricular (LV) function is one of the most important prognostic factors for the evaluation of cardiac disorders, whether managed medically or surgically. This makes the LV ejection fraction (EF) the most frequently used clinical parameter of the LV function and gives important data that can be useful in the selection of therapy or determination of the best time for an intervention. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the phase contrast (PC) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) method in the estimation of LV EF. Patients and methods This is a prospective study performed between January 2017 and December 2018. The studied group included 10 healthy patients. All patients underwent CMR scan to evaluate EF by two methods: volumetric method which assesses stroke volume (SV) via subtraction of end-systolic volume from end-diastolic volume, and PC method which assesses the aortic (SV) through-plane PC across the aortic valve. The recorded SV were compared between the two methods. Results By the volumetric method, the estimated mean EF was 62.44 ± 6.61, while that estimated by the PC method was 64.34 ± 5.33, with a nonsignificant difference (P = 0.62) and it shows the validity of the PC method. Conclusion Validity of the PC CMR in the evaluation of EF as an alternative assessment method.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed91    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded15    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal