Left ventricular volume: an optimal parameter to detect systolic dysfunction on prospectively triggered 64-multidetector row computed tomography: another step towards reducing radiation exposure

In this study, we define the correlation between LV volumes (both LV end-diastolic volume [LVEDV] and LV end-systolic volume [LVESV]) and ejection fraction (EF) on 64 slice multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). We also determine the accuracy of all the LV volume (LVV) parameters to detect LV systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and investigate the feasibility of using LVV as a surrogate of LVSD on prospectively gated imaging to prevent the radiation exposure of retrospective imaging. 568 patients undergoing 64-detector MDCT were divided into 2 groups: Group 1—subjects without any heart disease and LVEF ≥ 50%; and Group 2—patients with coronary artery disease and LVEF < 50% (defined as LVSD). The LVV (LV cavity only) and Total LV volume (cavity + LV mass) at end-systole and end-diastole (LVESV, Total LVESV, LVEDV and Total LVEDV) were measured. The upper limit values (mean + 2 SD) of all LVV parameters in Group 1 were used as the reference criterion to diagnose LVSD in Group 2. An exponential correlation was found between LVEF and all the LVV parameters. The specificity to detect LVSD in Group 2 was >90% and the sensitivity was 88.9, 83.3, 61.3 and 74.9% by using LVESV, Total LVESV, LVEDV and Total LVEDV, respectively. Systolic and diastolic LV volumes had a high correlation with LVEF and a high accuracy to detect LVSD. Thus, on prospectively triggered imaging, ventricular volumes can predict patients with reduced LVEF, and appropriate referrals can be made

Prognostic implications of negative dobutamine stress echocardiography in African Americans compared to Caucasians

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Current cardiac imaging techniques for detection of left ventricular mass

Estimation of left ventricular (LV) mass has both prognostic and therapeutic value independent of traditional risk factors. Unfortunately, LV mass evaluation has been underestimated in clinical practice. Assessment of LV mass can be performed by a number of imaging modalities. Despite inherent limitations, conventional echocardiography has fundamentally been established as most widely used diagnostic tool. 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is now feasible, fast and accurate for LV mass evaluation. 3DE is also superior to conventional echocardiography in terms of LV mass assessment, especially in patients with abnormal LV geometry. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT) are currently performed for LV mass assessment and also do not depend on cardiac geometry and display 3-dimensional data, as well. Therefore, CMR is being increasingly employed and is at the present standard of reference in the clinical setting. Although each method demonstrates advantages over another, there are also disadvantages to receive attention. Diagnostic accuracy of methods will also be increased with the introduction of more advanced systems. It is also likely that in the coming years new and more accurate diagnostic tests will become available. In particular, CMR and CCT have been intersecting hot topic between cardiology and radiology clinics. Thus, good communication and collaboration between two specialties is required for selection of an appropriate test