Queensland Centre of Excellence in Cardiovascular MRI, Department of Medical Imaging, The Prince Charles Hospital, Rode Road, Chermside, Queensland 4032, Australia.
Heart Lung Circ. 2010 Jul;19(7):400-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2010.02.007. Epub 2010 Mar 30.
Gated Blood Pool Imaging (GBPI) has low inter-test variability compared to echocardiography, and is often used when accurate repeated measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction are required such as in the surveillance of post-transplant patients. The aim of this study was to determine if cardiac MRI (CMR) could replace Gated Blood Pool Imaging for annual assessment of left ventricular (LV) function in the surveillance of patients post-cardiac transplantation.
Forty-nine patients at various stages of post-cardiac transplantation presenting for annual review underwent LV functional assessment with GBPI and CMR. LV ejection fractions (EF) obtained from the two methods were compared and limits of agreement determined.
The mean EF (plus and minus two standard deviations) was 58.3+/-18% for GBPI and 57.6+/-18% for CMR. The two methods were found to provide clinically equivalent results.
Assessment of LVEF with CMR offers comparable values to GBPI in post-heart transplant patients. However, CMR also allows quantitative volumetric analysis of ventricular volumes and assessment of wall motion and valvular function. As is now accepted in native heart assessment, CMR should be considered the "gold standard" for post-transplant volumetric and functional evaluation. CMR offers information over-and-above traditional imaging modalities.
门控血池成像（GBPI）与超声心动图相比，其测试间变异性较低，当需要准确重复测量左心室射血分数时（例如在移植后患者的监测中），通常会使用门控血池成像。本研究的目的是确定心脏 MRI（CMR）是否可以替代门控血池成像，用于移植后患者的年度左心室（LV）功能评估。
49 名处于心脏移植后不同阶段的患者接受了年度 LV 功能评估，包括门控血池成像和 CMR。比较两种方法获得的 LV 射血分数（EF），并确定一致性界限。
门控血池成像的平均 EF（加和减两个标准差）为 58.3+/-18%，CMR 为 57.6+/-18%。两种方法的结果均为临床等效。
CMR 评估心脏移植后患者的 LVEF 与门控血池成像提供可比的值。然而，CMR 还可以定量分析心室容积，评估心室壁运动和瓣膜功能。正如现在在原生心脏评估中所接受的那样，CMR 应该被视为移植后容积和功能评估的“金标准”。CMR 提供的信息比传统成像方式更全面。
