1974
DOI: 10.1016/0002-8703(74)90280-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reproducibility of the angiographic left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with coronary artery disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
12
1

Year Published

1974
1974
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
4
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Mean interobserver variabilities in ejection fraction in this study were less than 2%, while Cohn et al 23 reported a mean variability of 5% in ejection fraction from contrast angiograms. Interobserver mean variations of 1-6% in interpretation of resting radionuclide ventriculograms have been reported.'…”
Section: Discussion Ejection Fractioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…Mean interobserver variabilities in ejection fraction in this study were less than 2%, while Cohn et al 23 reported a mean variability of 5% in ejection fraction from contrast angiograms. Interobserver mean variations of 1-6% in interpretation of resting radionuclide ventriculograms have been reported.'…”
Section: Discussion Ejection Fractioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…is ± 0.05 and + 27 ml, respectively in our laboratory. 23 In our study the positive inotropic effects of epinephrine on wall motion are well demonstrated by the augmented or hyperdynamic contraction pattern of the entire left ventricle in the normal subjects and of all normal zones in the sixteen subjects with asynergy. In no instance was contraction in such a normal zone rendered abnormal.…”
Section: Intraoperative and Pathological Observationssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…In comparing the RV angiographic stroke volume to its LV counterpart, the levophase analysis36 of the RV injection would theoretically appear to be an ideal approach because it almost instantaneously reflects the performance of both ventricular chambers, and so minimizes the variations in the constantly changing physiological parameters during cardiac catheterization. 1,28 Unfortunately, resolution of the levophase is often suboptimal37' 38 and volumes calculated from it differ from volumes calculated following direct LV injection of contrast material.39 40 Little is known about the extent of permanent or even transient RV dysfunction that can be induced by CAD,41-4' and whether there are alterations similar to those described for the LV. The common changes in LV function, usually encountered in the early stages Volume 52, October 1975 changes in RV volume-pressure characteristics.…”
Section: Patient Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%