English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Methods One hundred consecutive adult patients with stable cardiovascular disease underwent 2DE and CMR (Siemens, 1.5 T) within one week apart. LVEF measurements using Mmode echocardiography (M-mode EF), visual estimation on 2DE (visual EF), and CMR volumetric analysis (CMR EF) were retrospectively reviewed in 58 patients with normal LVEF (CMR EF >/= 50%), 17 patients with moderate LV dysfunction (CMR EF 35-49%), and 25 patients with severe LV dysfunction (CMR EF < 35%). Experienced sonographers quantified the M-mode EF in all studies according to standard Teichholz method. Level 3-accredited echocardiologists and CMR readers blindly assessed LVEF visually on echocardiograms and performed off-line CMR LV volume analysis, respectively. CMR served as the gold standard for comparison with M-mode EF and visual EF. Statistical analysis included Pearson correlation coefficient and paired samples T test.

Estimation of global left ventricular function: a comparison between echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonanace