RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:New Studies on KBR compared to MRIG1945V wrote: Pandora to your comment:
"They seem to have the 3 levels or options in doing the heart analysis. The catheterization approach, the echo + kbr approach and the 'gold standard' MRI approach. Presumably they all have their pluses and minuses depending on urgency, location, cost, availability, etc."
Cardiac catheterization is an invasive procedure of inserting a catheter into your body cavity to get information about the heart or blood vessels. In comparison, the echo-kbr and cardiac MRI are non-invasive. We know the procedure for the echo-kbr from Ventripoint VMS+. The Cardiac MRI takes pictures of the heart and blood vessels.
Ventripoint VMS+ aims to become the gold standard for heart analysis. Cheaper and faster than a Cardiac MRI.
G1945V
Thanks, yup, know all that. Was just trying to format a simple, brief response to GrahamB who appears to favour the MRI approach. It is the gold standard but does have limitations of which I think VPT's VMS+ can capitalize. Whether it covers the deficiencies that he was pointing out such as end-systolic volume (RVESV), stroke volume (RVSV) and ejection fraction (RVEF), I have no idea -- not smart enough for that one, so do not know if that would be a specific reference to the VMS+ product output.
Conventional transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) combined with Knowledge-based reconstruction (KBR) were the procedures being compared to MRI in this particular study i.e. "The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of TTE-KBR compared to the gold standard cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in determining RV dimensions in pulmonary sarcoidosis."
How any of that relates to VMS+ and it's targeted applications I have no understanding of so cannot make any kind of knowledgeable comment -- just posting written words.