Assessment of pulmonary venous stenosis after radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation by magnetic resonance angiography: A comparison of linear and cross-sectional area measurements
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Phantoms, Imaging MeSH
- Atrial Fibrillation surgery MeSH
- Catheter Ablation adverse effects MeSH
- Contrast Media MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Magnetic Resonance Angiography methods MeSH
- Meglumine analogs & derivatives MeSH
- Organometallic Compounds MeSH
- Image Processing, Computer-Assisted MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Pulmonary Valve Stenosis diagnosis etiology MeSH
- Case-Control Studies MeSH
- Pulmonary Veins * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- gadobenic acid MeSH Browser
- Contrast Media MeSH
- Meglumine MeSH
- Organometallic Compounds MeSH
One of the recognised complications of catheter ablation is pulmonary venous stenosis. The aim of this study was to compare two methods of evaluation of pulmonary venous diameter for follow-up assessment of the above complication: (1) a linear approach evaluating two main diameters of the vein, (2) semiautomatically measured cross-sectional area (CSA). The study population consists of 29 patients. All subjects underwent contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CeMRA) of the pulmonary veins (PVs) before and after the ablation; 14 patients were also scanned 3 months later. PV diameter was evaluated from two-dimensional multiplanar reconstructions by measuring either the linear diameter or CSA. A comparison between pulmonary venous CSA and linear measurements revealed a systematic difference in absolute values. This difference was not significant when comparing the relative change CSA and quadratic approximation using linear extents (linear approach). However, a trend towards over-estimation of calibre reduction was documented for the linear approach. Using CSA assessment, significant PV stenosis was found in ten PVs (8%) shortly after ablation. Less significant PV stenosis, ranging from 20 to 50% was documented in other 18 PVs (15%). CeMRA with CSA assessment of the PVs is suitable method for evaluation of PV diameters.
See more in PubMed
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005 Jan;28 Suppl 1:S83-5 PubMed
Radiographics. 2003 Oct;23 Spec No:S19-33; discussion S48-50 PubMed
Am J Cardiol. 2004 Jun 1;93(11):1428-31, A10 PubMed
Circulation. 2003 Dec 23;108(25):3102-7 PubMed
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Sep;10(3):339-46 PubMed
Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2002 Dec;6(4):397-400 PubMed
Circulation. 2003 Nov 11;108(19):2355-60 PubMed
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Apr 15;138(8):634-8 PubMed
Circulation. 2005 Feb 8;111(5):546-54 PubMed
Eur Heart J. 2003 May;24(10):963-9 PubMed
Circulation. 2003 Jun 3;107(21):2710-6 PubMed
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005 Jun;16(6):582-8 PubMed
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005 Oct;14(1):21-5 PubMed
Circulation. 2003 Jan 7;107(1):21-3 PubMed
Circulation. 2005 Mar 8;111(9):1100-5 PubMed
Eur Radiol. 2005 Jun;15(6):1122-7 PubMed
Circulation. 2003 Apr 22;107(15):2004-10 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 1998 Sep 3;339(10):659-66 PubMed
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2002 Oct;13(10 ):986-9 PubMed
Circulation. 2003 Feb 18;107(6):845-50 PubMed
Chest. 2004 Aug;126(2):428-37 PubMed
Circulation. 1999 Nov 2;100(18):1879-86 PubMed
Circulation. 2000 Nov 21;102(21):2619-28 PubMed
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2002 Nov;13(11):1076-81 PubMed
Eur Radiol. 2004 Nov;14(11):2053-60 PubMed
