. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 May 23;26(8):910–918. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2013.04.016

Table 5.

Echocardiography using the hemisphere-cylinder (HC) formula and full-volume (FV) CMR are compared in their ability to detect changes (Δ) in EDV, ESV and EF from a reference value, which is the average value of the control group in Table 2.

	ΔEDV(μl)		ΔESV(μl)		ΔEF(%)
	Echo-HC	CMR-FV	Echo-HC	CMR-FV	Echo-HC	CMR-FV
Reference value	464	497	65	127	86	74
Apical MI n=11	242±160	232±94	197±129	201±77	−22±13	−19±10
POH n=4	202±149	56±52	93±109	70±87	−8±12	−9±13
Small apical MI n=3	96±187	104±54	100±75	51±41	−15±3^*	−3±4
All diseased rats n=18	209±161	172±111	158±123	147±100	−18±13	−14±11

CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; Echo, echocardiography; EDV, end-diastolic volume; ESV, end-systolic volume; FV, full-volume and SD, standard deviation.

Values are expressed as mean ± SD.

p<0.05 by paired t-test vs. CMR-FV