Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging ; 35(11): 2085-2093, 2019 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31197526

RESUMEN

Little is known about the comparison of multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scanning with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for serial monitoring of HER2+ breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab. The association of cardiac biomarkers with CMR left ventricular (LV) function and volume is also not well studied. Our objectives were to compare CMR and MUGA for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment, and to examine the association between changes in brain natriuretic peptide (NT-BNP) and troponin-I and changes in CMR LV function and volume. This prospective longitudinal two-centre cohort study recruited HER2+ breast cancer patients between January 2010 and December 2013. MUGA, CMR, NT-BNP and troponin-I were performed at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months after trastuzumab initiation. In total, 41 patients (age 51.7 ± 10.8 years) were enrolled. LVEF comparison between MUGA and CMR demonstrated weak agreement (Lin's correlation coefficient r = 0.46, baseline; r = 0.29, 6 months; r = 0.42, 12 months; r = 0.39, 18 months; all p < 0.05). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated wide LVEF agreement limits (pooled agreement limits 3.0 ± 6.2). Both modalities demonstrated significant LVEF decline at 6 and 12 months from baseline, concomitant with increased LV volumes on CMR. Changes in NT-BNP correlated with changes in LV diastolic volume at 12 and 18 months (p < 0.05), and LV systolic volume at 18 months (p < 0.05). Changes in troponin-I did not correlate with changes in LV function or volume at any timepoint. In conclusion, CMR and MUGA LVEF are not interchangeable, warranting selection and utility of one modality for serial monitoring. CMR is useful due to less radiation exposure and accuracy of LV volume measurements. Changes in NT-BNP correlated with changes in LV volumes.


Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Radiofármacos/administración & dosificación , Pertecnetato de Sodio Tc 99m/administración & dosificación , Volumen Sistólico/efectos de los fármacos , Tomografía Computarizada de Emisión , Trastuzumab/efectos adversos , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/diagnóstico por imagen , Función Ventricular Izquierda/efectos de los fármacos , Adulto , Biomarcadores/sangre , Técnicas de Imagen Sincronizada Cardíacas , Cardiotoxicidad , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Péptido Natriurético Encefálico/sangre , Fragmentos de Péptidos/sangre , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Troponina I/sangre , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/inducido químicamente , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/fisiopatología
2.
Magn Reson Imaging ; 52: 69-74, 2018 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29859946

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines provide left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) criterion for use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) but do not specify which modality to use for measurement. We compared LVEF measurements by radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) vs cardiac MRI (CMR) in ICD candidates to assess impact on clinical decision making. METHODS: This single-centre study included 124 consecutive patients referred for assessment of ICD implantation who underwent RNV and CMR within 30 days for LVEF measurement. RNV and CMR were interpreted independently by experienced readers. RESULTS: Among 124 patients (age 64 ±â€¯11 years, 77% male), median interval between CMR and RNV was 1 day; mean LVEF was 32 ±â€¯12% by CMR and 33 ±â€¯11% by RNV (p = 0.60). LVEF by CMR and RNV showed good correlation, but Bland-Altman analysis showed relatively wide limits of agreement (-12.1 to 11.4). CMR LVEF reclassified 26 (21%) patients compared to RNV LVEF (kappa = 0.58). LVEF by both modalities showed good interobserver reproducibility (ICC 0.96 and 0.94, respectively) (limits of agreement -7.27 to 5.75 and -8.63 to 6.34, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although LVEF measurements by CMR and RNV show moderate agreement, there is frequent reclassification of patients for ICD placement based on LVEF between these modalities. Future studies should determine if a particular imaging modality for LVEF measurement may enhance ICD decision making and treatment benefit.


Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Ventriculografía con Radionúclidos/métodos , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/diagnóstico por imagen , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/fisiopatología , Ecocardiografía , Femenino , Ventrículos Cardíacos/diagnóstico por imagen , Ventrículos Cardíacos/fisiopatología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estudios Retrospectivos , Volumen Sistólico
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda