Comparison of left and right atrial volumes determined by two- and three-dimensional echocardiography with those determined by multidetector computed tomography for healthy dogs

Eric J. Owens 1Department of Clinical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Search for other papers by Eric J. Owens in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Nicole L. LeBlanc 1Department of Clinical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Search for other papers by Nicole L. LeBlanc in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
, and
Katherine F. Scollan 1Department of Clinical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Search for other papers by Katherine F. Scollan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare left atrial volume (LAV) and right atrial volume (RAV) determined by 2-D and 3-D echocardiographic methods with the LAV and RAV determined by ECG-gated multidetector CT (MDCT) for healthy dogs.

ANIMALS

11 healthy purpose-bred young adult hound-type dogs.

PROCEDURES

Each dog was anesthetized and underwent MDCT and a complete echocardiographic examination. Modality-specific software was used to measure the respective atrial volumes at ventricular end systole, and LAV and RAV measurements were subsequently indexed to body weight and compared among imaging modalities.

RESULTS

The LAV determined by echocardiographic methods did not differ significantly from the LAV determined by MDCT. However, the RAV determined by 3-D echocardiography and 2-D echocardiography via the left apical and left cranial windows differed significantly from the RAV determined by MDCT. Bland-Altman analyses indicated that the indexed LAV and RAV determined by echocardiographic methods were systematically underestimated, compared with MDCT measurements, but the bias was much smaller for LAV than for RAV.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that, for dogs, echocardiography might be an acceptable alternative to MDCT for measurement of LAV but not for measurement of RAV. However, the study population was small and homogenous in terms of breed, age, and weight. These findings need to be validated in a larger, more varied population of dogs with and without cardiac disease.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare left atrial volume (LAV) and right atrial volume (RAV) determined by 2-D and 3-D echocardiographic methods with the LAV and RAV determined by ECG-gated multidetector CT (MDCT) for healthy dogs.

ANIMALS

11 healthy purpose-bred young adult hound-type dogs.

PROCEDURES

Each dog was anesthetized and underwent MDCT and a complete echocardiographic examination. Modality-specific software was used to measure the respective atrial volumes at ventricular end systole, and LAV and RAV measurements were subsequently indexed to body weight and compared among imaging modalities.

RESULTS

The LAV determined by echocardiographic methods did not differ significantly from the LAV determined by MDCT. However, the RAV determined by 3-D echocardiography and 2-D echocardiography via the left apical and left cranial windows differed significantly from the RAV determined by MDCT. Bland-Altman analyses indicated that the indexed LAV and RAV determined by echocardiographic methods were systematically underestimated, compared with MDCT measurements, but the bias was much smaller for LAV than for RAV.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that, for dogs, echocardiography might be an acceptable alternative to MDCT for measurement of LAV but not for measurement of RAV. However, the study population was small and homogenous in terms of breed, age, and weight. These findings need to be validated in a larger, more varied population of dogs with and without cardiac disease.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 141 0 0
Full Text Views 977 612 38
PDF Downloads 689 315 32
Advertisement