Minicucci Marcos F, Azevedo Paula S, Duarte Daniella R, Matsubara Beatriz B, Matsubara Luiz S, Campana Alvaro O, Paiva Sergio A R, Zornoff Leonardo A M
Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, UNESP, Botucatu, SP, Brasil.
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007 Aug;89(2):83-7, 93-8. doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2007001400004.
To evaluate the differences between three methods for the measurement of experimental infarction in rats in comparison to the traditional method.
Histological analysis of the infarction area (AREA), histological analysis of the internal cavity perimeter (PER) and echocardiogram analysis of the internal perimeter (ECHO) were compared to the traditional method (histological analysis of the epicardial and endocardial circumferences of the infarction region - CIR). Repeated ANOVA measurements were used in conjunction with the Dunn multiple comparison test, the Bland and Altman concordance method and the Spearman correlation test. Significance was established as p < 0.05.
The data of 122 animals were analyzed, 3 to 6 months after the infarction. Infarction size assessments revealed differences between CIR and the other three methods (p < 0.001): CIR = 42.4% (35.9-48.8), PER = 50.3% (39.1-57.0), AREA = 27.3% (20.2-34.3), ECHO = 46.1% (39.9-52.6). Therefore, measurement by area underestimated the infarct size by 15%, whereas the echocardiogram and histological internal perimeter measurements overestimated the infarct size by 4% and 5%, respectively. In relation to ECHO and PER, even though the difference between the methods was only 1.27%, the concordance interval ranged from 24.1% to -26.7%, suggesting a low level of concordance between the methods. In relation to associations, statistically significant correlations were found between: CIR and PER (r = 0.88 and p < 0.0001); CIR and AREA (r = 0.87 and p < 0.0001) and CIR and ECHO (r = 0.42 and p < 0.0001).
Despite the high level of correlation, there was a low level of concordance between the methods to define infarct size.
与传统方法相比，评估三种测量大鼠实验性梗死的方法之间的差异。
将梗死面积的组织学分析（AREA）、内腔周长的组织学分析（PER）和内腔周长的超声心动图分析（ECHO）与传统方法（梗死区域的心外膜和心内膜周长的组织学分析 - CIR）进行比较。重复方差分析测量与邓恩多重比较检验、布兰德和奥特曼一致性方法以及斯皮尔曼相关性检验结合使用。显著性设定为p < 0.05。
对122只动物在梗死后3至6个月的数据进行了分析。梗死大小评估显示CIR与其他三种方法之间存在差异（p < 0.001）：CIR = 42.4%（35.9 - 48.8），PER = 50.3%（39.1 - 57.0），AREA = 27.3%（20.2 - 34.3），ECHO = 46.1%（39.9 - 52.6）。因此，面积测量法低估梗死大小15%，而超声心动图和组织学内腔周长测量法分别高估梗死大小4%和5%。关于ECHO和PER，尽管方法之间的差异仅为1.27%，但一致性区间为24.1%至 - 26.7%，表明方法之间的一致性水平较低。关于相关性，在以下各项之间发现了具有统计学意义的相关性：CIR与PER（r = 0.88且p < 0.0001）；CIR与AREA（r = 0.87且p < 0.0001）以及CIR与ECHO（r = 0.42且p < 0.0001）。
尽管相关性水平较高，但定义梗死大小的方法之间的一致性水平较低。
