Table 1 |
||
|
Comparison between different techniques. |
||
|
Technique |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
|
||
|
M-mod echocardiography |
-safe, -rapid, -cost-effective, -available, -portable, -highly versatile, -noninvasive |
-limited in patients with poor acoustic image (obese and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and asymmetric LV -operator dependent |
|
|
||
|
2DE |
-safe, -rapid, -cost-effective, -available, -portable, -highly versatile, -noninvasive |
-limited in patients with poor acoustic image (obese and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and asymmetric LV , -operator dependent |
|
|
||
|
3DE |
-safe, -rapid, -cost-effective, -available, -portable, -versatile -highly versatile, -noninvasive |
-limited in patients with poor acoustic image (obese and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) |
|
|
||
|
CMR |
-safe -highly versatile, -noninvasive -reproducible |
- Limited in claustrophobic patients, acute and chronic renal failure or those with metallic implants, -long testing time, -expensive, -not portable, -limited availability |
|
|
||
|
CCT |
-medium versatile, -noninvasive |
- Limited in patients with arrhythmia or obesity, -long testing time, -radiation exposure, -limited for serial studies, -not portable, -contrast agent exposure |
|
|
||
|
SPECT |
-medium versatile, -noninvasive |
-long testing time, -radiation exposure, -limited for serial studies, -not portable, -expensive |
|
|
||
|
CV |
-medium versatile, |
-invasive, -radiation exposure, -not portable, -contrast agent exposure, Limited in patients with pulmonary, and pericardial disease |
|
|
||
|
Celebi et al. Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2010 8:19 doi:10.1186/1476-7120-8-19 |
||