Tan ES, Van der Vleuten PA, Jessurun GAJ, Tio RA, Zijlstra F, Van Gelder IC. Evaluation of global left ventricular function assessment of non-fluorescent electromechanical endocardial mapping compared with biplane left ventricular contrast angiography.
Neth Heart J 2010;
18:72-7. [PMID:
20200612 PMCID:
PMC2828566 DOI:
10.1007/bf03091741]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background. Little is known about the diagnostic accuracy of global LV function assessment by electromechanical endocardial mapping (EEM). The aim of the present study was to determine the relationship between global left ventricular (LV) function measured by EEM and biplane left ventricular contrast angiography (LVA) after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).Methods. Thirty-seven patients underwent LVA and EEM during routine coronary angiography four months after primary percutaneous intervention for STEMI. Global LV function parameters were available from both techniques in all patients. LVA was regarded as reference standard.Results. All procedures were carried out without adverse events. Average age was 55+/-10 years and 84% were male. EEM showed an overestimation of end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) of 6.5 ml and 25.5 ml, respectively. Correlation (r) was 0.84 (p<0.001) for EDV and 0.74 (p<0.001) for ESV. Average left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by EEM was 17.2% point (+/-11.3% point) lower compared with LVA (r=0.69, p<0.001).Conclusion. Although global functional parameters by EEM correlated well with LVA, the relatively large differences in terms of absolute values for ventricular volumes and LVEF render the two techniques non-interchangeable for global LV-function-data. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:72-77.).
Collapse