Linked Life Data

6872369

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/6872369

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
1983-9-23
pubmed:abstractText
We studied 46 patients with a history of transmural myocardial infarction or angiographic evidence of coronary artery stenosis with both conventional contrast ventriculography and digital subtraction ventriculography from May to September 1982. Urografin 76, 30 ml, was administered at a flow rate of 18 ml/s, by means of a catheter in the superior vena cava during digital subtraction ventriculography (DSV). Results of the latter were compared with conventional contrast ventriculograms. The correlation coefficient was r =0.938 (p less than 0.001) for determination of ejection fraction with both methods. The data in individual cases suggest that DSV is more sensitive than conventional contrast ventriculography in determination of severely reduced ejection fractions. The methods are practically identical in qualitative evaluation of disorders of regional wall motion in the anterolateral region, while DSV is more sensitive than conventional ventriculography in evaluating the apical region. Sensitivity was 85.7% when the two methods were compared in evaluation of the inferior region of the left ventricle. Both methods are identical in demonstration of severely deformed ventricles. Digital subtraction ventriculography may replace conventional contrast ventriculography in some of the situations discussed above.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0160-9289
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
6
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
265-76
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1983
pubmed:articleTitle
A comparison of conventional contrast ventriculography and digital subtraction ventriculography.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't