Agreement of 2D transthoracic echocardiography with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging after ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Cardiovascular Agents
/ administration & dosage
Drug Administration Schedule
Echocardiography
/ methods
Female
Heart Ventricles
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Angiography
/ methods
Male
Metformin
/ administration & dosage
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging
/ methods
Myocardial Reperfusion Injury
/ diagnosis
Reproducibility of Results
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
/ diagnosis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
/ diagnosis
2D transthoracic echocardiography
Left ventricular function
Magnetic resonance imaging
Myocardial infarction
Journal
European journal of radiology
ISSN: 1872-7727
Titre abrégé: Eur J Radiol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8106411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
14
11
2018
revised:
18
02
2019
accepted:
27
02
2019
entrez:
22
4
2019
pubmed:
22
4
2019
medline:
22
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study was designed to investigate the agreement of 2D transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in a contemporary population of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. In this subanalysis of the GIPS-III trial, a randomized controlled trial investigating the administration of metformin in STEMI patients to prevent reperfusion injury, we studied 259 patients who underwent same-day CMR and 2D TTE assessments four months after hospitalization for a first STEMI. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to assess agreement between LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and LV mass measurements. Sensitivity and specificity of 2D TTE to detect categories of LVEF (≤35%, 35-50%, ≥50%) was determined. Linear regression of absolute differences in measurements between imaging modalities was used to investigate whether patient characteristics impact measurement bias. Pairwise difference (bias) and 95% limits of agreement between CMR and 2D TTE measurements were +84 (37, 147) ml for LVEDV, +39 (6, 85) ml for LVESV, -1.1 ± 13.5% for LVEF, and -75 (-154, -14) g for LV mass. Sensitivity and specificity of 2D TTE to detect subjects with moderately depressed LVEF (35-50%) as measured by CMR were 52% and 88% respectively. We observed a significant effect of enzymatic infarct size on bias between 2D TTE and CMR in measuring LVESV and LVEF (P = 0.029, P = 0.001 respectively), of age and sex on bias between 2D TTE and CMR in measuring LV mass (P = 0.027, P < 0.001) and LVEDV (P = 0.001, P = 0.039), and of heart rate on bias between 2D TTE and CMR in LV volume measurements (P = 0.004, P = 0.016). Wide limits of agreement, underestimation of LV volumes and overestimation of LV mass was observed when comparing 2D TTE to CMR. Enzymatic infarct size, age, sex, and heart rate are potential sources of bias between imaging modalities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study was designed to investigate the agreement of 2D transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in a contemporary population of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.
METHODS
METHODS
In this subanalysis of the GIPS-III trial, a randomized controlled trial investigating the administration of metformin in STEMI patients to prevent reperfusion injury, we studied 259 patients who underwent same-day CMR and 2D TTE assessments four months after hospitalization for a first STEMI. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to assess agreement between LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and LV mass measurements. Sensitivity and specificity of 2D TTE to detect categories of LVEF (≤35%, 35-50%, ≥50%) was determined. Linear regression of absolute differences in measurements between imaging modalities was used to investigate whether patient characteristics impact measurement bias.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Pairwise difference (bias) and 95% limits of agreement between CMR and 2D TTE measurements were +84 (37, 147) ml for LVEDV, +39 (6, 85) ml for LVESV, -1.1 ± 13.5% for LVEF, and -75 (-154, -14) g for LV mass. Sensitivity and specificity of 2D TTE to detect subjects with moderately depressed LVEF (35-50%) as measured by CMR were 52% and 88% respectively. We observed a significant effect of enzymatic infarct size on bias between 2D TTE and CMR in measuring LVESV and LVEF (P = 0.029, P = 0.001 respectively), of age and sex on bias between 2D TTE and CMR in measuring LV mass (P = 0.027, P < 0.001) and LVEDV (P = 0.001, P = 0.039), and of heart rate on bias between 2D TTE and CMR in LV volume measurements (P = 0.004, P = 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Wide limits of agreement, underestimation of LV volumes and overestimation of LV mass was observed when comparing 2D TTE to CMR. Enzymatic infarct size, age, sex, and heart rate are potential sources of bias between imaging modalities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31005178
pii: S0720-048X(19)30092-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.02.039
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cardiovascular Agents
0
Metformin
9100L32L2N
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6-13Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.