4.2 Article

Comparability of left ventricular M-mode echocardiography in dogs performed in long-axis and short-axis

Journal

VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 543-549

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2000.tb01887.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this prospective study was to determine comparability of left ventricular (LV) M-mode echocardiographic indices derived from right parasternal long-axis and short-axis imaging planes. In 104 dogs (37 healthy dogs and 67 dogs with heart disease), LV M-mode echocardiograms were recorded from both long-axis and short-axis views and interventricular septum thickness (TVS), left ventricular internal dimensions (LVD), left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPW), and LV shortening fraction (FS) were measured. Statistical analysis included paired t-test and graphical analysis to assess agreement between the two methods of data acquisition. Mean LVD in systole and diastole and mean NS in systole were significantly (P < 0.001) larger when measured from short-axis recordings compared to long-axis measurements. An increased magnitude of measurement resulted in increased differences between the methods for LV dimensions and fractional shortening. Differences between the two methods were small and within clinically acceptable limits in normal dogs. However, in 23 (34%) of the dogs with cardiac abnormality, one or more LV M-mode derived dimension obtained from one imaging plane did not agree sufficiently closely with the same measure from the other plane. Only for measurement of FS was there good agreement between methods in dogs with cardiac disease. Therefore, with the exception of FS, data gained from LV short-axis and long-axis M-mode recordings should not be used interchangeably in dogs with cardiac disease.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available