• Users Online: 36
  • 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 


 
 Table of Contents  
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

Date of Submission09-Feb-2017
Date of Acceptance20-Mar-2017
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2017

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
  Abstract 

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.

Keywords: cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, echocardiography, left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular mass, left ventricular mass index


How to cite this article:
Ebeid AM, Elsharkawy EM, El Fawal SK, Naga YS, Oraby MF. Role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography in assessing the left ventricle in hemodialysis patients. J Egypt Soc Nephrol Transplant 2017;17:30-7

How to cite this URL:
Ebeid AM, Elsharkawy EM, El Fawal SK, Naga YS, Oraby MF. Role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography in assessing the left ventricle in hemodialysis patients. J Egypt Soc Nephrol Transplant [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Jun 28];17:30-7. Available from: http://www.jesnt.eg.net/text.asp?2017/17/1/30/207905


  Introduction Top


Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a common finding in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. It is a component of uremic cardiomyopathy and an independent risk factor for sudden cardiac death, heart failure, and cardiac arrhythmias in the general population and in hemodialysis (HD) patients [1],[2],[3]. It becomes manifest before overt cardiovascular events and predicts increased mortality [4],[5].

Cardiovascular mortality is 3.5 times higher in renal patients than in the general population [6]. Heart failure represents 15%, myocardial infarction 10%, and uremic pericarditis 3% of dialysis-associated mortality [7]. Sudden cardiac death accounts for 60% of cardiovascular mortality, and the cause of death in 25% of them is due to arrhythmogenic sudden cardiac death [8],[9],[10].

An increase in left ventricular mass (LVM) and cardiac fibrosis has profound consequences in patients with chronic kidney disease and ESRD. These include sudden cardiac death due to abnormal electrical conduction in the distorted and fibrotic ventricle and ischemic cardiac disease, such as coronary artery atherosclerosis. The late stage of LVH and cardiac fibrosis lead to both diastolic and systolic dysfunction and ultimately to clinically recognizable CHF, which has an adverse effect on long-term survival in chronic kidney disease and ESRD patients [11].

LVH, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, and also significant diastolic dysfunction all are independent predictors of cardiovascular outcome and adverse cardiovascular events in dialysis patients [7],[12],[13]. Moreover, regression of LVH with a reduction of LVM has been associated with favorable outcomes such as lowered likelihood of developing heart failure [14], improvement in systolic function, reduction in the risk forventricular arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation [15],[16],[17], and lower all-cause mortality [18].

Echocardiography (ECHO) shows abnormalities in more than 75% of ESRD patients in the form of thickened LV wall and increased LVM [4],[5].

Doppler ECHO is a useful noninvasive tool for the diagnosis of LV abnormalities − an important step for the characterization of individuals with higher cardiovascular risk [19]. Traditionally, the M-mode and the two-dimensional Doppler ECHO allow assessment of ventricular mass and volumes, with excellent accuracy for the diagnosis of hypertrophy, definition of its geometric pattern (concentric or eccentric), and systolic function estimate (qualitative or quantitatively) [20]. For each parameter, superior techniques exist, but are not routinely used because of expense, unavailability, or invasiveness. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is superior to others in assessing LVM and cavity volume in patients with ESRD, whereas cardiac function is measured better with invasive techniques. In practice, ECHO is a reasonable, widely available tool and highly suitable for research purposes [21].

Although CMR is not widely available and of higher cost in comparison with ECHO, it is safe, has high accuracy, and is more reproducible with superior interobserver and intraobserver reliability [22],[23].

The objective of the present study was to compare LVM measurement and LVH detection by ECHO and CMR in ESRD patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD).


  Patients and methods Top


A total of 45 (30 ESRD on MHD and 15 matched, healthy controls) participants were recruited. Approval of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine at Alexandria University was obtained, and all patients gave their written informed consents. Patients were studied on the morning following HD, and they underwent both ECHO and CMR measurements of LV dimensions and function, which were performed by two independent observers on the same day.

ECHO was performed with a Philips Envisor CHD ultrasound system equipped with a 2.5-MHz broadband transducer. Comprehensive examination was performed with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position for the parasternal and apical views. All ECHO measurements were made in accordance with the recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography guidelines [24]. Measurements of LV size and function with assessment of LVM and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) were performed.

All patients underwent CMR with a 1.5 T MRI scanner (Achieva; Philips Medical Systems, Philips Achieva, release 3.2.3.3, 2014, Netherlands) equipped with a standard, five-element synergy cardiac coil. Patients were examined in the supine position. ECG leads were placed on the chest for gating purposes. Non-ECG-gated localizers scans in three orthogonal planes − axial, coronal, and sagittal − were obtained, followed by the reference scan for coil sensitivity. ECG-gated, breath-hold, bright-blood (steady state free precession) sequences were acquired in two-chamber, four-chamber, and short-axis planes for the assessment of LV volume, systolic function, and myocardial mass. A dedicated cardiac software package (Viewforum, Release 9; Philips Medical Systems) was used for measurement of LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes and myocardial mass, with calculation of global systolic function.

Definition of left ventricular hypertrophy

Patients were categorized as having LVH or not on the basis of accepted cutoff values for LVMI for ECHO (men >115 g/m2, women >95 g/m2) [24] and CMR (men >91 g/m2, women >77 g/m2) [25]. The measured relative wall thickness (RWT) allowed for further classification of LVH as either concentric hypertrophy (RWT >0.42) or eccentric hypertrophy (RWT ≤0.42).

Statistical analysis [26]

SPSS, version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) [27] was used for all statistical analyses. Data are expressed as mean±SD. Proportions were compared using χ2 analysis. Student’s t-test, analysis of variance, and Mann–Whitney tests were used for group comparison. A correlation analysis was performed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. The measurements of LVM obtained in the study were compared by the Bland and Altman method [28].


  Result Top


The present study included 30 ESRD patients on MHD from the dialysis unit of Alexandria Main University Hospital (15 males, 15 females) and 15, matched, healthy patients (nine females, six males). The studied variables are summarized in [Table 1]. The etiology of ESRD in the HD cohort was hypertension in 11 patients, DM, chronic GN, drug-induced, pyelonephritis, ADPKD, and SLE in two patients each, and seven patients had an unknown etiology.
Table 1 Summary of the data of study participants

Click here to view


LA diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end systolic diameter, LVM, and LVMI by ECHO were all significantly higher in group I than in group II (P≤0.001, P≤0.001, P=0.002, P≤0.001, P≤0.001, respectively).

LV dilatation by ECHO was found in 11 (36.7%) cases in group I and in none (0%) of them in group II. Mild mitral regurgitation was found in 6 cases (20%) cases in group I and in none (0%) of them in group II.

Left ventricular geometry by ECHO was normal in seven (23.3%) cases in group I and in six (40%) cases in group II. Concentric remodeling was present in three (10%) cases in group I and in five (33.3) cases in group II. In group I, 66.6% of patients met ECHO criteria for LVH (23.3% eccentric LVH, 43.3% concentric LVH), whereas in group II LVH was designated by ECHO in 26.6% of patients (13.3% eccentric LVH, 13.3% concentric LVH).

LVH was mild in eight (26.7%) cases in group I and in four (26.7%) cases in group II, was moderate in one (3.3%) case in group I and in none (0%) in group II, and was severe in 11 (36.7%) cases in group I and in none (0%) in group II.

LVM and LVMI by CMR were significantly higher in group I in comparison with group II (P≤0.001 and 0.001, respectively).

Mass-to-cavity ratio (mass/LV end-diastolic volume) was significantly higher in group I (0.77±0.19) in comparison with group II (0.62±0.12), with a P value of 0.007.

LVH criteria by CMR were met by 11 cases (36.7%) in group I (6.7% concentric LVH, 30% eccentric LVH) and by none (0%) of them in group II. Cohen’s κ for LVH detection was 0.449 (P=0.004) in group I and 0.441 (P≤0.001) in the total sample, reflecting moderate agreement, whereas Cohen’s κ for LVH geometry classification as concentric and eccentric was 0.372 (P≤0.001) in group I and 0.363 (P≤0.001) in the total sample, reflecting fair agreement.

There was a statistically significant, positive correlation between ECHO and MRI regarding LVM with a P value of less than 0.001.

The Bland–Altman analysis ([Figure 1] and [Figure 2], [Table 2] and [Table 3]) demonstrated wider agreement limits in LVM measurement by ECHO and CMR in group I (mean difference, 118.63 g; limits, 38.6 to −275.9 g, P≤0.001) than in group II (mean difference, 79.29 g; limits, −23.7 g to −134.8 g, P≤0.001) and the limits in the total sample (mean difference, 105.52 g; limits, 242 g to −31.0 g, P≤0.001). Cohen’s κ ([Table 4]) for group I was 0.194 (P=0.0.073), reflecting poor agreement, and in the total sample it was 0.219 (P=0.019), reflecting fair agreement.
Figure 1 Bland–Altman analysis of LVM in group I. ECHO, echocardiography; LVM, left ventricular mass

Click here to view
Figure 2 Bland–Altman analysis of LVM in group II. ECHO, echocardiography; LVM, left ventricular mass

Click here to view
Table 2 Comparison between ECHO and MRI according to LVM for group I (n=30)

Click here to view
Table 3 Comparison between ECHO and MRI according to LVM for group II (n=15)

Click here to view
Table 4 Agreement for LVM in each group and the total sample

Click here to view


There was a statistically significant, positive correlation between ECHO and MRI regarding LVMI with a P value of less than 0.001.

The Bland–Altman analysis ([Figure 3] and [Figure 4], [Table 5] and [Table 6]) demonstrated wider agreement limits in LVMI measurement by ECHO and CMR. There were wider agreement limits in LVMI measurements by ECHO and CMR in group I (mean difference, 63.33 g/m2; limits, 145.5 to −18.8 g/m2, P≤0.001) than in group II (mean difference, 44 g/m2; limits, 71.3–16.7 g/m2, P≤0.001) and in the total sample (mean difference, 56.89 g/m2; limits, 127.7 to −13.9 g/m2, P≤0.001). Cohen’s κ ([Table 7]) was 0.353 (P=0.0029) for group I and was 0.353 (P=0.001) for the total sample, reflecting fair agreement.
Figure 3 Bland–Altman analysis of LVMI in group I. ECHO, echocardiography; LVMI, left ventricular mass index

Click here to view
Figure 4 Bland–Altman analysis of LVMI in group II. ECHO, echocardiography; LVMI, left ventricular mass index

Click here to view
Table 5 Comparison between ECHO and MRI according to LVMI for group I (n=30)

Click here to view
Table 6 Comparison between ECHO and MRI according to LVMI for group II (n=15)

Click here to view
Table 7 Agreement for LVMI in each group and the total sample

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


ECHO LVH represents an adverse prognostic factor independent of age, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, smoking status, and hypertension even in nonrenal populations [3],[29],[30].

In this study, LVM and LVMI by ECHO and CMR were significantly greater in group I in comparison with group II. LVH criteria were met by 66.6% of patients in group I (23.3% eccentric LVH, 43.3% concentric LVH), whereas in group II LVH was designated by ECHO in 26.6% of patients (13.3% eccentric LVH, 13.3% concentric LVH). CMR criteria of LVH were met by 11 (36.7%) cases in group I (6.7% concentric LVH, 30% eccentric LVH) and by none (0%) in group II. Cohen’s κ for LVH detection was 0.449 in group I and was 0.441 for the total sample, reflecting moderate agreement, whereas Cohen’s κ for LVH geometry classification as concentric and eccentric was 0.372 in group I and 0.363 for the total sample, reflecting fair agreement.

A study by Zoccali et al. [31] reported a prevalence of LVH in 77% of the ESRD population on HD. A recent study conducted by Laddha et al. [32] in 2014 reported that the authors detected LVH in 74% of ESRD patients on HD. In another study by Tian et al. [33] in Chinese HD and peritoneal dialysis patients, the prevalence of LVH according to the Framingham criteria was 68.8% in HD patients and 45.2% in peritoneal dialysis patients. However, in a study by Singh et al. [34], LVH was present only in 48% of cases.

In a study by Arnold et al. [35] in a paediatric cohort, ECHO findings showed that the prevalence of LVH was 32%, and by CMR the prevalence was only 24% in the same cohort. They also compared the classification of LVH using accepted standards (95th percentile cutoffs of LVMI for echo and LVM for CMR), which still resulted in only poor agreement between the two methods with Cohen’s κ. The agreement for detecting LVH showed that the number of children with Echo-LVMI above the 95th percentile was much higher than those with CMR LVM above the 95th percentile. Thus, the agreement between the two methods was only poor with a Cohen’s κ of 0.08, presuming CMR to be the gold standard [35].

LVM assessed by MRI versus ECHO in the present study was lower. This has been shown in head-to-head comparisons of CMR versus ECHO by Stewart et al. [21], where CMR detected lower LVM. This has also been detected by Jakubovic et al. [36].

Analysis of LVM measurements by ECHO and CMR in a study by Supe-Markovina et al. [37] in hypertensive children also demonstrated that ECHO overestimates LVM.

The discrepancy between ECHO and CMR can be explained by the way each modality assesses LVM. ECHO depends on geometric assumptions derived from normal hearts to calculate LVM and cavity size. It has many confounders that affect its results, such as volume status of the patient and body habitus, and it is operator dependent [38]. In contrast, CMR measures LVM through direct mathematical calculation using three-dimensional data [39],[40]. Therefore, CMR is less sensitive to volume status changes [41], as it directly measures cardiac mass, overcoming the problem of geometric assumptions and calculations used in ECHO [41],[42].

ECHO overestimated LVM particularly at higher values, in comparison with CMR, which is not affected by volume status; therefore, CMR seems to be a more accurate and precise modality for the assessment of LVM in patients on MHD as has been shown in a study that was performed on the same patients before and after dialysis [21],[40],[43],[44]. The ellipsoid shape of the heart is the major contributor to inaccurate measurement of LVM by ECHO in HD patients [45],[46], as it omits the effect of pressure and volume overload that lead to morphological changes of the heart, resulting in various types and combination of hypertrophy. The endocardial border is not well defined on ECHO, and LV wall thickness is not uniform across all myocardial segments. In addition, ECHO calculation of LVM is based on a formula that is dependent primarily on the internal dimensions of the LV [47], and thus ECHO estimation of LVM varies greatly between the predialytic and the postdialytic period solely because of fluctuation in intravascular volume, and consequently the variation in the intracardiac volume [47],[48].


  Conclusion Top


ECHO overestimates LVM and LVMI as well as LVH detection in comparison with CMR in ESRD patients on HD. Therefore, when accurate assessment of LVM is needed, CMR may be a better option to detect LVH in this high cardiovascular risk group.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Parfrey PS, Foley RN, Harnett JD, Kent GM, Murray D, Barre PE. Outcomeand risk factors of ischemic heart disease in chronic uremia. Kidney Int 1996; 49:1428–1434.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Parfrey PS, Foley RN, Harnett JD, Kent GM, Murray DC, Barre PE. Outcome and risk factors for left ventricular disorders in chronic uremia. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1996; 11:1277–1285.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1561–1566.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Middleton RJ, Parfrey PS, Foley RN. Left ventricular hypertrophy in the renal patient. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12:1079–1084.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Foley RN, Parfrey PS, Kent GM, Harnett JD, Murray DC, Barre PE. Long-term evolution of cardiomyopathy in dialysis patients. Kidney Int 1998; 54:1720–1725.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Greaves SC, Sharpe DN. Cardiovascular disease in patients with end-stage renal failure. Aust N Z J Med 1992; 22:153–158.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Silverberg JS, Sniderman AD, Barre PE, Prichard SS. Impact of left ventricular hypertrophy on survival in end stage renal disease. Kidney Int 1989; 36:286–290.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
De Bie MK, van Dam B, Gaasbeek A. The current status of interventions aiming at reducing sudden cardiac death in dialysis patients. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:1559–1564.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Shamseddin MK, Parfrey PS. Sudden cardiac death in chronic kidney disease: epidemiology and prevention. Nat Rev Nephrol 2011; 7:145–154.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
USRDS. Atlas of end-stage renal disease in the United States. USRDS 2006 Annual Data Report. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Disease 2006  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Glassock RJ, Pecoits-Filho R, Barberato SH. Left ventricular mass in chronic kidney disease and ESRD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 4:S79–S91.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Wang AY, Wang M, Lam CW, Chan IH, Zhang Y, Sanderson JE. Left ventricular filling pressure by doppler echocardiography in patients with end-stage renal disease. Hypertension 2008; 52:107–114.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Glassock RJ, Pecoits-Filho R, Barbareto S. Increased left ventricular mass in chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease: what are the implications? Nephrolo Dial Transplant 2010; 39:16–19.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Foley RN, Parfrey PS, Kent GM, Harnett JD, Murray DC, Barre PE. Serial change in echocardiographic parameters and cardiac failure in endstage renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:912–916.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Wachtell K, Bella JN, Rokkedal J. Change in diastolic left ventricular filling after one year of antihypertensive treatment: the Losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) Study. Circulation 2002; 105:1071–1076.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Okin PM, Wachtell K, Devereux RB. Regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy and decreased incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension. JAMA 2006; 296:1242–1248.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Rials SJ, Wu Y, Xu X. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy with captopril restores normal ventricular action potential duration, dispersion of refractoriness, and vulnerability to inducible ventricular fibrillation. Circulation 1997; 96:1330–1336.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
London GM, Pannier B, Guerin AP. Alterations of left ventricular hypertrophy in and survival of patients receiving hemodialysis: follow-up of an interventional study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; s12:2759–2767.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Yamada H, Goh PP, Sun JP, Odabashian J, Garcia MJ, Thomas JD et al. Prevalence of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction by Doppler echocardiography: clinical application of the Canadian consensus guidelines. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15:1238–1244.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Barberato SH, Pecoits-Filho R. Echocardiographic alterations in patients with chronic kidney failure undergoing hemodialysis. Arq Bras Cardiol 2010; 94:131–137.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.
Stewart GA, Foster J, Cowan M. Echocardiography overestimates left ventricular mass in hemodialysis patients relative to magnetic resonance imaging. Kidney Int 1999; 56:2248–2253.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Grothues F, Smith GC, Moon JC, Bellenger NG, Collins P, Klein HU, Pennell DJ Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol 2002; 90:29–34.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Bellenger NG, Davies LC, Francis JM, Coats AJ, Pennell DJ. Reduction in sample size for studies of remodeling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonansce. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2000; 2:271–278.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015; 16:233–270.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kawel-Boehm N, Maceira A, Valsangiacomo-Buechel ER, Vogel-Claussen J, Turkbey EB, Williams R. Normal values for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in adults and children. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2015; 17:29.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Kotz S, Balakrishnan N, Read CB, Vidakovic B. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interscience; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 6:307–310.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Ghali JK, Liao Y, Simmons B, Castaner A, Cao G, Cooper RS. The prognostic role of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with or without coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117:831–836.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.
Koren MJ, Devereux RB, Casale PN, Savage DD, Laragh JH. Relation of left ventricular mass and geometry to morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114:345–352.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.
Zoccali C, Benedetto FA, Mallamaci F, Tripepi G, Giacone G. Prognostic value of echocardiographic indicators of left ventricular systolic function in asymptomatic dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:1029–1037.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Laddha M, Sachdeva V, Diggikar PM, Sapathy PK, Kakrani AL. Echocardiographic assessment of cardiac dysfunction in patients of end stage renal disease on hemodialysis. J Assoc Physicians India 2014; 62:28–32.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Tian JP, Wang T, Wang H, Cheng LT, Tian XK, Lindholm B. The prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy in chinese hemodialysis patients is higher than that in peritoneal dialysis patients. Ren Fail 2008; 30:391–400.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Singh S, Doley PK, Pragya P, Sivasankar M, Singh VP, Singh N. Echocardiographic changes in patients with esrd on maintenance hemodialysis-a single centre study. J Cardiovasc Dis Diagn 2014; 2:165.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Arnold R, Geiger J, Schwendinger D, Gimpel C, Jung S, Pohl M. Left ventricular mass and systolic function in children with chronic kidney disease-comparing echocardiography with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Nephrol 2016; 31:255–265.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Jakubovic BD, Wald R, Goldstein MB, Leong-Poi H, Yuen DA, Perl J. Comparative assessment of 2-dimensional echocardiography vs. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in measuring left ventricular mass in patients with and without end-stage renal disease. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29:384–390.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Supe-Markovina K, Nielsen JC, Musani M, Woroniecki RP, Panesar LE. Assessment of left ventricular mass and hypertrophy by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2016; 18:976–981.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Devereux RB, Reichek N. Echocardiographic determination of left ventricular mass in man: anatomic validation of the method. Circulation 1977; 55:613–618.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.
Bellenger NG, Grothues F, Smith GC, Pennell DJ. Quantification of right and left ventricular function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Herz 2000; 25:392–399.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]    
40.
Hunold P, Vogt F, Heemann UW, Zimmermann U, Barkhausen J. Myocardial mass and volume measurement of hypertrophic left ventricles by MRI: study in dialysis patients examined before and after dialysis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2003; 5:553–561.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Missouris CG, Forbat SM, Singer DR, Markandu ND, Underwood R, MacGregor GA. Echocardiography overestimates left ventricular mass: a comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hypertension. J Hypertens 1996; 14:1005–1010.  Back to cited text no. 41
[PUBMED]    
42.
Bottini PB, Carr AA, Prisant LM, Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Gottdiener JS. Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. Am J Hypertens 1995; 8:221–228.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]    
43.
Constantine G, Shan K, Flamm SD, Sivananthan MU. Role of MRI in clinical cardiology. Lancet 2004; 363:2162–2171.  Back to cited text no. 43
[PUBMED]    
44.
Lima J, Desai M. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: current and emerging applications. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:1164–1171.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Foley RN, Curtis BM, Randell EW, Parfrey PS. Left ventricular hypertrophy in new hemodialysis patients without symptomatic cardiac disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 5:805–813.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Nardi E, Palermo A, Mule G, Cusimano P, Cottone S, Cerasola G. Left ventricular hypertrophy and geometry in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease. J Hypertens 2009; 27:633–641.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Kilickap M, Turhan S, Sayin T. Intravascular volume dependency of left ventricular mass calculation by two-dimensional guided M-mode echocardiography. Can J Cardiol 2007; 23:219–222.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Martin LC, Barretti P, Cornejo IV, Felipe MJ, Forti AH, Matsubara BB et al. Influence of fluid volume variations on the calculated value of the left ventricular mass measured by echocardiogram in patients submitted to hemodialysis. Ren Fail 2003; 25:43–53.  Back to cited text no. 48
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Patients and methods
  Result
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed22    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded6    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]