AIMS: The CARTO electrophysiological mapping system has demonstrated accurate results for end-diastolic ventricular volumes in casts and animals. However, in humans, a comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), the non-invasive gold standard for volumetric analysis, has not yet been performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 34 (29 male) heart failure patients (NYHA class III/IV) underwent an electrophysiological mapping procedure with the CARTO system in the left ventricle (LV) (n = 34) and right ventricle (RV) (n = 12) and CMR for RV and LV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV and LVEDV) measurements another day. Mean LVEDV was comparable between CMR and CARTO (328 +/- 95 and 320 +/- 92 mL, respectively; P = NS), whereas RV volumes measured by CARTO were larger (CMR 140 +/- 48 vs. CARTO 176 +/- 47 mL; P < 0.01). Overall, we found a good correlation between CMR and CARTO measurements for both chambers; however, the Bland-Altman analysis showed a non-interchangeability of these methods. Measurement differences were independent of chamber size, but significantly affected by the number of acquired mapping points. CONCLUSION: Although CMR and CARTO showed a good correlation in the measurement of RVEDV and LVEDV in a group of heart failure patients, the clinical interchangeability of the two methods may be questioned.
Volume measurement by CARTO compared with cardiac magnetic resonance.
FANTONI, CECILIA;
2006-01-01
Abstract
AIMS: The CARTO electrophysiological mapping system has demonstrated accurate results for end-diastolic ventricular volumes in casts and animals. However, in humans, a comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), the non-invasive gold standard for volumetric analysis, has not yet been performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 34 (29 male) heart failure patients (NYHA class III/IV) underwent an electrophysiological mapping procedure with the CARTO system in the left ventricle (LV) (n = 34) and right ventricle (RV) (n = 12) and CMR for RV and LV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV and LVEDV) measurements another day. Mean LVEDV was comparable between CMR and CARTO (328 +/- 95 and 320 +/- 92 mL, respectively; P = NS), whereas RV volumes measured by CARTO were larger (CMR 140 +/- 48 vs. CARTO 176 +/- 47 mL; P < 0.01). Overall, we found a good correlation between CMR and CARTO measurements for both chambers; however, the Bland-Altman analysis showed a non-interchangeability of these methods. Measurement differences were independent of chamber size, but significantly affected by the number of acquired mapping points. CONCLUSION: Although CMR and CARTO showed a good correlation in the measurement of RVEDV and LVEDV in a group of heart failure patients, the clinical interchangeability of the two methods may be questioned.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
