2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2020.01.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Left-ventricular non-compaction–comparison between different techniques of quantification of trabeculations: Should the diagnostic thresholds be modified?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
2
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to DCM, the larger volumetric parameters in LVNC can be caused by the dilation of the ventricle at reduced heart function and might become even more pronounced due to the presence of trabeculae [19]. In contrast to our study, Cheng et al and Donghi et al observed higher volumes and lower EF in a DCM population compared with LVNC; however, the lower LV function in DCM might indicate the differences from our results [20,21].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 90%
“…Similar to DCM, the larger volumetric parameters in LVNC can be caused by the dilation of the ventricle at reduced heart function and might become even more pronounced due to the presence of trabeculae [19]. In contrast to our study, Cheng et al and Donghi et al observed higher volumes and lower EF in a DCM population compared with LVNC; however, the lower LV function in DCM might indicate the differences from our results [20,21].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 90%
“…The clinical manifestations of ILVNC lack specificity. LV trabeculations are not a specific manifestation of ILVNC and are often confused with transitional trabeculations caused by DCM (14). The present study provides a method to distinguish these 2 conditions based on functional evaluation (i.e., myocardial strain).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…The dice coefficient was calculated as a measure of segmentation precision [14]. Its value ranges from 0 to 1, with one being the most accurate measurement result [15]. Except for the excluded number for Article 3 in Figure 2, there is no evident difference in the findings between Articles 2 and 1.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%