Abstract 18834: Right Ventricular Fractional Area Change Obtained in Different Echocardiographic Views of Right Heart; Comparison With Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

• Published in: Circulation (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 128; no. suppl_22
• Main Authors: Takemoto, Rika, Oe, Hiroki, Ugawa, Satoko, Toh, Norihisa, Watanabe, Nobuhisa, Tanabe, Yasuharu, Ito, Hiroshi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 26.11.2013
• ISSN: 0009-7322; 1524-4539
• DOI: 10.1161/circ.128.suppl_22.A18834

Abstract only Background and Purpose: Fractional area change(FAC) has been shown to correlate well with right ventricular(RV) ejection fraction(EF) by cardiac magnetic resonance(CMR). The guideline recommends that multiple echocardiographic views should be obtained to evaluate RV function. However, there is no clear recommendation which view should be used to evaluate RV FAC. Methods: CMR and transthoracic echocardiography(TTE) were performed in 46 consecutive patients for evaluation of RV function. We measured tricuspid annular plain systolic excursion (TAPSE) , FAC on apical four chamber view (A4CV)(A-FAC) and that of RV focused A4CV (F-FAC) and modified A4CV (M-FAC) and pulsed Doppler peak velocity at the tricuspid annulus (s’) as an assessment of RV systolic function. The association between echocardiography-derived parameters of RV systolic function and CMR-derived measurement of RVEF and RV volume were evaluated. Result: Both A-FAC and F-FAC measurement were fesible in 46 patients (100%) and M-FAC measurement was fesible in 39 patients (85%). End diastolic area (Area ED)(cm2) of A-FAC and F-FAC showed correlation with CMR-derived end diastolic volume, respectively (p<0.0001, r=0.66 vs P=<0.0001,r=0.62 ). End systolic area (Area ES)(cm2) of A-FAC and F-FAC showed correlation with CMR-derived end systolic volume, respectively (p<0.0001, r=0.72 vs p<0.0001, r=0.78) P=<0.0001,r=0.65). A-FAC and F-FAC has good correlation with CMR-derived RVEF(p=0.0003, r=0.50 vs P=<0.0001,r=0.65, respectively). M-FAC has no correlation with CMR-derived RVEF(p=0.065, r=0.30). There were no significant agreement between TAPSE, s’ and CMR-derived RVEF in this study. Conclusion: Both A-FAC and F-FAC had good correlation with CMR-derived RVEF, and M-FAC didn’t show correlation with CMR-derived RVEF.