4.6 Article

Ventricular mass index using magnetic, resonance imaging accurately estimates pulmonary artery pressure

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 1519-1524

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.00014602

Keywords

calculated ventricular mass index; Doppler echocardiography; magnetic resonance imaging; noninvasive; pulmonary arterial hypertension

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide accurate anatomical measurements of the cardiac ventricles. This study investigated whether a calculated ventricular mass index (VMI) would provide an accurate means of estimating pulmonary artery pressure noninvasively, and compared the results with conventional Doppler echocardiography and invasive measurement. A total of 26 subjects referred for investigation of pulmonary hypertension were studied by MRI and echocardiography within 2 weeks of cardiac catheterisation. The correlations for mean pulmonary artery pressure were as follows: VMI (ratio of right ventricular mass over left ventricular mass) r=0.81; pulmonary artery systolic pressure (echocardiography) r=0.77. The confidence intervals for the VMI were narrower than for echocardiography. Sensitivity and specificity for pulmonary hypertension were 84 and 71% respectively for the VMI compared with 89 and 57% for echocardiography. The calculated ventricular mass index provides an accurate and practical means of estimating pulmonary artery pressure noninvasively in pulmonary hypertension and may provide a more accurate estimate than Doppler echocardiography. This may be because it reflects the right ventricular response to sustained pulmonary hypertension over a long period and is not influenced by short-term physiological variables affecting echocardiography, such as heart rate, posture, hydration status and oxygen supplementation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available