• Users Online: 90
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 30-37

Role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography in assessing the left ventricle in hemodialysis patients


1 Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2 Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Marwa F Oraby
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21111
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jesnt.jesnt_9_17

Rights and Permissions

Background End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on hemodialysis (HD) are at increased risk for developing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), which is a predisposing factor for premature cardiovascular mortality. Although echocardiography (ECHO) has been the most commonly used technique for assessing LVH, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is now considered the gold standard and the most accurate tool for volume-independent determination of left ventricular mass (LVM). Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the agreement in LVM measurement and LVH detection between CMR and ECHO. Patients and methods A single-center, cross-sectional study including 30 ESRD patients on HD (group I) and 15, matched, healthy controls (group II) was performed to compare LVM measurement and LVH detection by ECHO and CMR. Result In both groups, ECHO overestimated LVM and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in comparison with CMR. The Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated wider agreement limits (38.6 to −275.9 g) in LVM measurements by ECHO and CMR in group I (mean difference, 118.63 g, P≤0.001) than in group II (mean difference, 79.29 g; limits, −23.7 to −134.8 g, P≤0.001). Agreement was poor and not statistically significant in group I. Regarding LVMI measurement, there were wider agreement limits (145.5 to −18.8 g/m2) by ECHO and CMR in group I (mean difference, 63.33 g/m2, P≤0.001) than in group II (mean difference, 44 g/m2; limits, 71.3–16.7 g/m2, P≤0.001). Agreement was fair and statistically significant in group I. LVH prevalence by ECHO and CMR was 66.6 and 36.7%, respectively, in group I and 26.6 and 0%, respectively, in group II, with moderate agreement between both techniques (P=0.004) in group I. Conclusion ECHO overestimates LVM and LVMI as well as LVH detection in comparison with CMR in ESRD patients on HD. Therefore, for accurate assessment of LVM, CMR may be a better option to detect LVH in this high cardiovascular risk group.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed117    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal