الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 116 |  |  |
| | | from | 116 | | |
Abstract
The evaluation of cardiac function can provide important diagnostic and prognostic information in many diseases that have an impact on the performance of the pump activity of the heart for several years; investigators have explored different strategies to quantify global and regional cardiac performance using a variety of techniques.
Transthoracic echocardiography is the most widely used method for LV function assessment, but the modality is operator dependent and can be impaired by a poor acoustic window. MDCT is considered as a potential tool for the assessment of the left ventricular function.
MDCT allows the acquisition of the entire heart volume in a single breath-hold with excellent temporal and spatial resolution. Moreover, data acquisition in spiral MDCT, using a retrospective ECG gating, is continuous and provides information for any phase of the cardiac cycle.
In this study we aim to evaluate the role of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) in assessment left ventricular systolic function in comparison with transthoracic echocardiography.
This study was performed on 50 patients (27of them were male and 23 were female) with a mean age 50.36±10.24 years .They were presented with atypical chest pain, dyspnea or regular arrhythmia. All patients were scanned on 128 slice MDCT and had 2D Echocardiography done within the same day of the CT scan.
LV functional parameters (EF, ESV, EDV, LV mass) were obtained from two modalities MDCT and 2D Echocardiography with the use of the two different software systems. The data were expressed as mean ± SD and compared using the paired two-tailed Student’s t test. Agreement for the LV volumes and function by MDCT and 2D echocardiography were determined by Pearson’s correlation coefficient for linear regression and Bland Altman analysis.
We found that that mean EF obtained with MDCT was (61.22 ± 9.50%) was slightly higher than that obtained by echocardiography which was (61.14 ± 10.90%). Evaluation of LVEF by linear regression analysis showed moderate correlation as r = 0.345 and p value < 0.05, also Bland Altman plot showed good inter-technique agreement analysis as it showed a mean value of difference (±SD)of 0.8± 11.6%(P<0.05). The 95% limits of agreement ranged from -3.3 to 3.2%. Mean LVESV measured by MDCT was (70.23±38.35) slightly lower than that obtained by 2D echocardiography which was (72.13±32.69 ) Evaluation of LVESV by linear regression analysis showed good correlation r = 0.8. p value < 0.05. Bland Altman plot showed good inter-technique agreement as it showed a mean value of difference (±SD) of 2.4 ± 47.4 mL (P<0.05). The 95% limits of agreement ranged from -11.2 to 16.2 .Mean LVEDV measured by MDCT was (172.22 ± 53.57) slightly lower than that obtained by 2D echocardiography which was (173.76 ± 62.45) Evaluation of LVEDV by linear regression analysis showed good correlation r = 0.84. p value < 0.05. Bland Altman plot showed good inter-technique agreement as it showed a mean value of difference (± SD) of 2.28 ± 80.4 mL (P < 0.05). The 95% limits of agreement ranged from -20.2 to 25.2, Mean LV mass by MDCT was (164.63±52.57) lower than that obtained by 2D echocardiography which was (198.32±72.54).