CARDIAC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (CMRI) VS TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CARDIAC VOLUMES & REGIONAL FUNCTION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Abstract

Objective: to establish and compare metrics of cardiac volumes and function between CMRI and echo-cardiography in patients presenting for imaging evaluation of their cardiac function.

Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional study.

Place and Duration of Study: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Department of AFIC & NIHD Rawalpindi, from July 2018 till December 2018.

Material and Methods: All the patients who reported for their cardiac magnetic resonance imaging during our study duration due to atypical chest pain or suspected coronary artery disease were recruited in the study while patients with prosthetic valve, cardiac devices or claustrophobic patients were excluded. Data was collected after the informed consent of the patients. Cardiac Volumes and LVEF were measured using Simpson's biplane
method in transthoracic echocardiography while in MRI analysis Ejection fraction was assessed by evaluation of the volumes of the endocardial contours in diastole and systole of the short-axis images. The included slice closest to mitral valve plane had myocardium in at least two-third of the circumference of the left ventricle. CMRI and Echo report parameters of the patients were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 23.

Results: Data of fifty patients were collected for the study out of which 42 (84.0%) were male patients while 8(16.0%) were female patients. Mean age of the patients was 53.4 ± 3 years. We found out that EF and other measured parameters were rather similar with cardiac MRI; as demonstrated with small mean differences. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac MRI was 65% while mean left ventricular ejection fraction by
echocardiography wad 55%. The mean LV End Diastolic Volume measured with MRI was statistically significant (<0.001) when compared with mean LV End Diastolic Volume measured by echocardiography.

Conclusion: Our study suggested that both the cardiac imaging modalities measured cardiac dimensions, volumes and functions closely similar as demonstrated by a very small bias. However, further study with large population is suggested.