Objective: In heart failure, effective evaluation of ventricular volumes and cardiac functions in the determination of prognosis and treatment options and response to treatment ptorocol is very important. In recent years, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is reported as superior to echocardiography in cases where echocardigraphy results are insufficient to display of left ventricular function. In this study, comparative analysis of cardiac MRI and echocardiography was performed to evaluate the left ventricular function.
Material and Methods: Our study included 49 patients who have heart failure or might have and also these patients were examined with ecocardiography before having cardiac MRI images. In our protocol, we have visualized the reference images in vertical and horizontal axes and then for determining the motion of the left ventricule wall and ejection fraction and volumetric changes of ventricles we have imaged all short axis of the left ventricule which was perpendicular to the horizontal and vertical axes of the reference images, between apex and the mitral valves. Also, we have imaged all chambers for evaluating the apex. The patients parameters of MRI that included left ventricle end diastolic volume (EDV), end-sistolic volume (ESV), stoke volume (SV), cardiac output(CO), ejection fraction (EF) and left ventricle muscle mass were compared with those were recorded in ecocardiography.
Results: In cardiac MRI, EDV were recorded min. 30, max. 357 ml (mean 126.96±58.22), ESV were recorded as min. 29, max. 288 ml (mean 71.39±54.59) where as they were recorded min 51, max 281 ml (mean 126.18±50.85); min 13, max 227 ml (mean 64.2±42.04) respectively, in ecocardiography. These values were correlated both in MRI and ecocardiography and were tatistically significant (p=0.0001; p=0.0001, respectively). SV were recorded min 13, max 101 ml (mean. 57.06±16.29) in MRI and were recorded min 22, max 108 ml (mean 61.39±14.3) in ecocardiography. CO were recorded min 1.6, max 7.0 (mean 4.63±1.34) in MRI and were recorded min 2.5, max 10.6 (mean 5.02±1,6) in ecocardiography. EF were min 16%, max 69% (mean 50%±12.14) in MRI and were 30%, max 68% (mean 55%±10.66) in ecocardiography. The recordings of SV, CO and EF were correlated both in MRI and in ecocardiography and they were also statistically significant (p=0.005; p=0.002 respectively).
Left ventricle muscle mass (LVM) were min 53, max 219 (mean 104.53±33,4)gr in MRI; min 69, max 384 (mean 172.31±76.38) gr in ecocardiography. These values were not correlated with MRI and ecocardiography and they were not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Our study results suggested that cardiac MRI cam be an alternative way in evaluating the cases that ecocardiography became inefficient cause of the acoustic window problems and the cases that were diagnosed exactly.
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, heart failure, ecocardiography, ejection fraction