Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1983;68:1222-1230

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shepertycki, T. H.
Right arrow Articles by Morton, B. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shepertycki, T. H.
Right arrow Articles by Morton, B. C.

Circulation, Vol 68, 1222-1230, Copyright © 1983 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

A computer graphic-based angiographic model for normal left ventricular contraction in man and its application to the detection of abnormalities in regional wall motion

TH Shepertycki and BC Morton

Analyzing the digitized left ventricular cineangiograms of 70 patients with no demonstrable heart disease (NDHD), we derived an angiographic model for normal contraction in the intact heart as viewed in the 30 degree right anterior oblique projection. This model was verified statistically by comparing the predicted regional stroke volumes with the measured volumes for the NDHD group. A wall motion system based on this model was compared with four other systems by examining the ventriculograms of 141 patients, all suffering from coronary artery disease but with normal volumes and ejection fractions (greater than 0.61). Of these, 60 had normally contracting ventricles and 81 exhibited mild regional abnormalities according to two experienced angiographers. Using Cochrane's Q test, we found significant differences among the five methods (Q = 29.5;p less than .001). The new approach showed significantly better agreement with the subjective assessment than the next best method (Q = 5.3;p less than .05). On a regional basis, overall sensitivity was 87.5% and specificity was 97.9%.