Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1989 May;19(5):393-401.

[Quantitative evaluation of left ventricular systolic function using bidimensional echocardiography: comparison with cineangiography]

[Article in Italian]
Affiliations
  • PMID: 2767372
Comparative Study

[Quantitative evaluation of left ventricular systolic function using bidimensional echocardiography: comparison with cineangiography]

[Article in Italian]
R Crepaz et al. G Ital Cardiol. 1989 May.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the evaluation of the left ventricular systolic function performed both by angiography and 2D-echocardiography on 80 subjects (31 with coronary artery disease, 18 with left ventricular volume overload, 10 with left ventricular pressure overload, 14 with mitral valve disease and 7 normal controls). The 2D-echocardiograms of the left ventricle with simultaneous measurement of the right arm systolic blood pressure was performed within 24 hours of the angiographic examination. The following parameters were obtained using the two methods: end-diastolic volume index, end-systolic volume index, ejection fraction, left ventricular mass index, mass/volume ratio, end-systolic circumferential stress, contractility expressed as end-systolic circumferential stress/end-systolic volume ratio; the end-systolic circumferential stress/ejection fraction ratio was calculated only by 2D-echocardiography. The afterload and contractility were not calculated in subjects with coronary artery disease and left ventricular outflow gradient. No statistically significant differences were shown between the two methods, except a slight under-estimation by echocardiography of the angiographic end-diastolic volume index (93.1 +/- 38.9 ml/m2 vs 115 +/- 39.9 ml/m2; p less than 0.01) and over-estimation of the mass/volume ratio (1.38 +/- 0.33 g/ml vs 1.2 +/- 0.44 g/ml; p less than 0.01) was shown between the two methods for all parameters. A depressed contractile state was also demonstrated by the end-systolic circumferential stress/ejection fraction ratio. The inter and intraobserver variability was 6.6 +/- 4.4% (range 0.16%) and 4.2 +/- 3% (range 1.11%) respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources