4.5 Article

Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance of late gadolinium enhancement and diastolic wall thickness to predict recovery of left ventricular function after coronary artery bypass surgery

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-10-41

关键词

-

资金

  1. Siriraj Grant for Research Development
  2. Siriraj Hospital
  3. Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective was to compare the value of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and end-diastolic wall thickness (EDWT) assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in predicting recovery of left ventricular function after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Methods: We enrolled patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction < 45% who were scheduled for CABG. Regional contractility was assessed by cine CMR at baseline and 4 months after CABG. EDWT and LGE were assessed at baseline. Predictors for improvement of regional contractility were analyzed. Results: We studied 46 men and 4 women with an average age of 61 years. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 37 +/- 13%. A total of 2,020 myocardial segments were analyzed. Abnormal wall motion and the LGE area were detected in 1,446 segments (71.6%) and 1,196 segments (59.2%) respectively. Wall motion improvement was demonstrated in 481 of 1,227 segments (39.2%) that initially had wall motion abnormalities at baseline. Logistic regression analysis showed that the LGE area, EDWT and resting wall motion grade predicted wall motion improvement. Comparison of Receiver-Operator-Characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrated that the LGE area was the most important predictor (p < 0.001). Adding information from LGE to the EDWT can decrease the number of false predictions by EDWT alone from 483 to 127 segments. Conclusion: LGE and EDWT are independent predictors for functional recovery after revascularization. However, LGE appears to be a more important factor and independent of EDWT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据