Comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients status post atrial switch procedure

Jason G. Ho, Mervyn D. Cohen, Eric S. Ebenroth, Marcus S. Schamberger, Timothy M. Cordes, Matthew T. Bramlet, Roger A. Hurwitz, Tiffanie Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. This study compares image quality, cost, right ventricular ejection fraction analysis, and baffle visualization between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in those status post atrial switch for transposition of the great arteries. Background. This population requires imaging for serial evaluations. Transthoracic echocardiography is often first line but has drawbacks, many of which are addressed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Methods. Twelve patients (mean age 25 years) with relatively concurrent (mean 157 days) studies were included. Three separate echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging physicians independently analyzed baffles, image quality, and right ventricular ejection fractions. Institutional and Medicaid charges were compared. Results. For right ventricular ejection fraction, echocardiography (36.1%) underestimated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (47.8%, P= .002). Image quality for transthoracic echocardiography was significantly rated lower than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (P= .002). Baffles were better seen in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (transthoracic echocardiography vs. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: superior vena cava 86% vs. 100% [P= .063]; inferior vena cava 33% vs. 97% [P= .002]; pulmonary vein 92% vs. 100% [P= .250]). Comparing hospital charges and Medicaid reimbursement, transthoracic echocardiography respectively costs 18% and 38% less than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions. In conclusion, transthoracic echocardiography underestimated right ventricular ejection fraction compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging had consistently higher image quality and better visualization of the baffles. Cost differences are minimal. We propose that cardiac magnetic resonance imaging be considered first line for imaging in certain patients' status post atrial switch procedure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)122-130
Number of pages9
JournalCongenital Heart Disease
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Echocardiography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Stroke Volume
Medicaid
Costs and Cost Analysis
Arterial Switch Operation
Hospital Charges
Transposition of Great Vessels
Superior Vena Cava
Pulmonary Veins
Inferior Vena Cava
Physicians

Keywords

  • Atrial switch
  • Cardiac magnetic resonance
  • Comparison
  • Echocardiography
  • Mustard
  • Senning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Surgery
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients status post atrial switch procedure. / Ho, Jason G.; Cohen, Mervyn D.; Ebenroth, Eric S.; Schamberger, Marcus S.; Cordes, Timothy M.; Bramlet, Matthew T.; Hurwitz, Roger A.; Johnson, Tiffanie.

In: Congenital Heart Disease, Vol. 7, No. 2, 03.2012, p. 122-130.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ho, Jason G. ; Cohen, Mervyn D. ; Ebenroth, Eric S. ; Schamberger, Marcus S. ; Cordes, Timothy M. ; Bramlet, Matthew T. ; Hurwitz, Roger A. ; Johnson, Tiffanie. / Comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients status post atrial switch procedure. In: Congenital Heart Disease. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 122-130.
@article{2459c9333134430f8ad5dc880016228e,
title = "Comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients status post atrial switch procedure",
abstract = "Objectives. This study compares image quality, cost, right ventricular ejection fraction analysis, and baffle visualization between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in those status post atrial switch for transposition of the great arteries. Background. This population requires imaging for serial evaluations. Transthoracic echocardiography is often first line but has drawbacks, many of which are addressed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Methods. Twelve patients (mean age 25 years) with relatively concurrent (mean 157 days) studies were included. Three separate echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging physicians independently analyzed baffles, image quality, and right ventricular ejection fractions. Institutional and Medicaid charges were compared. Results. For right ventricular ejection fraction, echocardiography (36.1{\%}) underestimated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (47.8{\%}, P= .002). Image quality for transthoracic echocardiography was significantly rated lower than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (P= .002). Baffles were better seen in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (transthoracic echocardiography vs. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: superior vena cava 86{\%} vs. 100{\%} [P= .063]; inferior vena cava 33{\%} vs. 97{\%} [P= .002]; pulmonary vein 92{\%} vs. 100{\%} [P= .250]). Comparing hospital charges and Medicaid reimbursement, transthoracic echocardiography respectively costs 18{\%} and 38{\%} less than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions. In conclusion, transthoracic echocardiography underestimated right ventricular ejection fraction compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging had consistently higher image quality and better visualization of the baffles. Cost differences are minimal. We propose that cardiac magnetic resonance imaging be considered first line for imaging in certain patients' status post atrial switch procedure.",
keywords = "Atrial switch, Cardiac magnetic resonance, Comparison, Echocardiography, Mustard, Senning",
author = "Ho, {Jason G.} and Cohen, {Mervyn D.} and Ebenroth, {Eric S.} and Schamberger, {Marcus S.} and Cordes, {Timothy M.} and Bramlet, {Matthew T.} and Hurwitz, {Roger A.} and Tiffanie Johnson",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1747-0803.2011.00571.x",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "122--130",
journal = "Congenital Heart Disease",
issn = "1747-079X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients status post atrial switch procedure

AU - Ho, Jason G.

AU - Cohen, Mervyn D.

AU - Ebenroth, Eric S.

AU - Schamberger, Marcus S.

AU - Cordes, Timothy M.

AU - Bramlet, Matthew T.

AU - Hurwitz, Roger A.

AU - Johnson, Tiffanie

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Objectives. This study compares image quality, cost, right ventricular ejection fraction analysis, and baffle visualization between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in those status post atrial switch for transposition of the great arteries. Background. This population requires imaging for serial evaluations. Transthoracic echocardiography is often first line but has drawbacks, many of which are addressed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Methods. Twelve patients (mean age 25 years) with relatively concurrent (mean 157 days) studies were included. Three separate echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging physicians independently analyzed baffles, image quality, and right ventricular ejection fractions. Institutional and Medicaid charges were compared. Results. For right ventricular ejection fraction, echocardiography (36.1%) underestimated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (47.8%, P= .002). Image quality for transthoracic echocardiography was significantly rated lower than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (P= .002). Baffles were better seen in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (transthoracic echocardiography vs. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: superior vena cava 86% vs. 100% [P= .063]; inferior vena cava 33% vs. 97% [P= .002]; pulmonary vein 92% vs. 100% [P= .250]). Comparing hospital charges and Medicaid reimbursement, transthoracic echocardiography respectively costs 18% and 38% less than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions. In conclusion, transthoracic echocardiography underestimated right ventricular ejection fraction compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging had consistently higher image quality and better visualization of the baffles. Cost differences are minimal. We propose that cardiac magnetic resonance imaging be considered first line for imaging in certain patients' status post atrial switch procedure.

AB - Objectives. This study compares image quality, cost, right ventricular ejection fraction analysis, and baffle visualization between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in those status post atrial switch for transposition of the great arteries. Background. This population requires imaging for serial evaluations. Transthoracic echocardiography is often first line but has drawbacks, many of which are addressed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Methods. Twelve patients (mean age 25 years) with relatively concurrent (mean 157 days) studies were included. Three separate echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging physicians independently analyzed baffles, image quality, and right ventricular ejection fractions. Institutional and Medicaid charges were compared. Results. For right ventricular ejection fraction, echocardiography (36.1%) underestimated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (47.8%, P= .002). Image quality for transthoracic echocardiography was significantly rated lower than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (P= .002). Baffles were better seen in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (transthoracic echocardiography vs. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: superior vena cava 86% vs. 100% [P= .063]; inferior vena cava 33% vs. 97% [P= .002]; pulmonary vein 92% vs. 100% [P= .250]). Comparing hospital charges and Medicaid reimbursement, transthoracic echocardiography respectively costs 18% and 38% less than cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions. In conclusion, transthoracic echocardiography underestimated right ventricular ejection fraction compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging had consistently higher image quality and better visualization of the baffles. Cost differences are minimal. We propose that cardiac magnetic resonance imaging be considered first line for imaging in certain patients' status post atrial switch procedure.

KW - Atrial switch

KW - Cardiac magnetic resonance

KW - Comparison

KW - Echocardiography

KW - Mustard

KW - Senning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858820583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858820583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1747-0803.2011.00571.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1747-0803.2011.00571.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22011133

AN - SCOPUS:84858820583

VL - 7

SP - 122

EP - 130

JO - Congenital Heart Disease

JF - Congenital Heart Disease

SN - 1747-079X

IS - 2

ER -