Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study

Cardiac adaptation in response to exercise has historically been described using echocardiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), however, has evolved as a preferred imaging methodology for cardiac morphological assessment. While direct imaging modality comparisons in athletes suggest that large...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Spence, Angela, Naylor, L., Carter, H., Dembo, L., Murray, C., O'Driscoll, G., George, K., Green, D.
Format: Journal Article
Published: The American Physiological Society 2013
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47869
_version_ 1848757953128038400
author Spence, Angela
Naylor, L.
Carter, H.
Dembo, L.
Murray, C.
O'Driscoll, G.
George, K.
Green, D.
author_facet Spence, Angela
Naylor, L.
Carter, H.
Dembo, L.
Murray, C.
O'Driscoll, G.
George, K.
Green, D.
author_sort Spence, Angela
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Cardiac adaptation in response to exercise has historically been described using echocardiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), however, has evolved as a preferred imaging methodology for cardiac morphological assessment. While direct imaging modality comparisons in athletes suggest that large absolute differences in cardiac dimensions exist, it is currently unknown whether changes in cardiac morphology in response to exercise training are comparable when using echocardiography and CMR. Twenty-two young men were randomly assigned to undertake a supervised and intensive endurance or resistance exercise-training program for 24 wk. Echocardiography and CMR assessment of left ventricular (LV) mass, LV end-diastolic volume, internal cavity dimensions, and wall thicknesses were completed before and after training. At baseline, pooled data for all cardiac parameters were significantly different between imaging methods, while LV mass (r = 0.756, P < 0.001) and volumes (LV end-diastolic volume, r = 0.792, P < 0.001) were highly correlated across modalities. Changes in cardiac morphology data with exercise training were not significantly related when echocardiographic and CMR measures were compared. For example, posterior wall thickness increased by 8.3% (P < 0.05) when assessed using echocardiography, but decreased by 2% when using CMR. In summary, echocardiography and CMR imaging modalities produce findings that differ with respect to changes in cardiac size and volume following exercise training.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T09:36:17Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-47869
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T09:36:17Z
publishDate 2013
publisher The American Physiological Society
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-478692017-09-13T14:17:43Z Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study Spence, Angela Naylor, L. Carter, H. Dembo, L. Murray, C. O'Driscoll, G. George, K. Green, D. Cardiac adaptation in response to exercise has historically been described using echocardiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), however, has evolved as a preferred imaging methodology for cardiac morphological assessment. While direct imaging modality comparisons in athletes suggest that large absolute differences in cardiac dimensions exist, it is currently unknown whether changes in cardiac morphology in response to exercise training are comparable when using echocardiography and CMR. Twenty-two young men were randomly assigned to undertake a supervised and intensive endurance or resistance exercise-training program for 24 wk. Echocardiography and CMR assessment of left ventricular (LV) mass, LV end-diastolic volume, internal cavity dimensions, and wall thicknesses were completed before and after training. At baseline, pooled data for all cardiac parameters were significantly different between imaging methods, while LV mass (r = 0.756, P < 0.001) and volumes (LV end-diastolic volume, r = 0.792, P < 0.001) were highly correlated across modalities. Changes in cardiac morphology data with exercise training were not significantly related when echocardiographic and CMR measures were compared. For example, posterior wall thickness increased by 8.3% (P < 0.05) when assessed using echocardiography, but decreased by 2% when using CMR. In summary, echocardiography and CMR imaging modalities produce findings that differ with respect to changes in cardiac size and volume following exercise training. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47869 10.1152/japplphysiol.01348.2012 The American Physiological Society unknown
spellingShingle Spence, Angela
Naylor, L.
Carter, H.
Dembo, L.
Murray, C.
O'Driscoll, G.
George, K.
Green, D.
Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study
title Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study
title_full Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study
title_fullStr Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study
title_full_unstemmed Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study
title_short Does echocardiography accurately reflect CMR-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? A prospective longitudinal study
title_sort does echocardiography accurately reflect cmr-determined changes in left ventricular parameters following exercise training? a prospective longitudinal study
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47869