Left Ventricular End Diastolic Volume and Ejection Fraction Calculation: Correlation between Three Echocardiographic Methods.
Journal
Cardiology research and practice
ISSN: 2090-8016
Titre abrégé: Cardiol Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101516542
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
30
03
2019
revised:
03
10
2019
accepted:
15
10
2019
entrez:
20
3
2020
pubmed:
20
3
2020
medline:
20
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and end diastolic volume (EDV) are measured using Simpson's biplane (SB), 3-dimensional method (3DE), and speckle tracking (STE). Comparisons between methods in routine practice are limited. Our purpose was to compare and to determine the correlations between these three methods in clinical setting. LVEF and EDV were measured by three methods in 474 consecutive patients and compared using multiple Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The correlations (R) between methods were calculated. Median (IQR) LVEF_SB, LVEF_STE, and LVEF_3DE were 63.0% (60-69)%, 61% (57-65)%, and 62% (57-68)%. Median (IQR) EDV_SB, EDV_STE, and EDV_3DE were 85 ml (71-106) ml, 82 ml (69-100) ml, and 73 ml (59-89) ml. R between LVEF_SB and LVEF_3DE was 0.65 when echogenicity was good and 0.43 when poor. R for EDV_SB and EDV_3DE was 0.75 when echogenicity was good and 0.45 when poor. On BA analysis, biases were acceptable (<3.5% for LVEF) but limits of agreement (LOA) were large: 95% of the differences were between -15.4% and +18.8% for LVEF as evaluated by SB in comparison with 3DE, with a bias of 1.7%. In the comparison EDV_SB and EDV_3DE, the bias was 14 ml and the LOA were between -24 ml and +53 ml. On linear regressions, LVEF_3DE = 17.92 + 0.69 LVEF_SB and EDV_3DE = 18.94 + 0.63 EDV_SB. The three methods were feasible and led to acceptable bias but large LOA. Although these methods are not interchangeable, our results allow 3DE value prediction from SB, the most commonly used method.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and end diastolic volume (EDV) are measured using Simpson's biplane (SB), 3-dimensional method (3DE), and speckle tracking (STE). Comparisons between methods in routine practice are limited. Our purpose was to compare and to determine the correlations between these three methods in clinical setting.
METHODS
METHODS
LVEF and EDV were measured by three methods in 474 consecutive patients and compared using multiple Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The correlations (R) between methods were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Median (IQR) LVEF_SB, LVEF_STE, and LVEF_3DE were 63.0% (60-69)%, 61% (57-65)%, and 62% (57-68)%. Median (IQR) EDV_SB, EDV_STE, and EDV_3DE were 85 ml (71-106) ml, 82 ml (69-100) ml, and 73 ml (59-89) ml. R between LVEF_SB and LVEF_3DE was 0.65 when echogenicity was good and 0.43 when poor. R for EDV_SB and EDV_3DE was 0.75 when echogenicity was good and 0.45 when poor. On BA analysis, biases were acceptable (<3.5% for LVEF) but limits of agreement (LOA) were large: 95% of the differences were between -15.4% and +18.8% for LVEF as evaluated by SB in comparison with 3DE, with a bias of 1.7%. In the comparison EDV_SB and EDV_3DE, the bias was 14 ml and the LOA were between -24 ml and +53 ml. On linear regressions, LVEF_3DE = 17.92 + 0.69 LVEF_SB and EDV_3DE = 18.94 + 0.63 EDV_SB.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The three methods were feasible and led to acceptable bias but large LOA. Although these methods are not interchangeable, our results allow 3DE value prediction from SB, the most commonly used method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32190384
doi: 10.1155/2020/8076582
pmc: PMC7064836
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
8076582Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Nadia Benyounes et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Aug 3;1(4):e181456
pubmed: 30646130
Am J Cardiol. 1999 Nov 1;84(9):1068-73
pubmed: 10569665
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 Oct;109(10):533-541
pubmed: 27344376
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Jan;108(1):50-6
pubmed: 25530159
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 May 22;59(21):1897-907
pubmed: 22595410
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):233-70
pubmed: 25712077
Echocardiography. 2014;31(1):87-100
pubmed: 24786629
Eur Heart J. 2005 Mar;26(6):607-16
pubmed: 15618026
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Oct;15(10):1063-93
pubmed: 25239940
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Oct;24(10):1092-100
pubmed: 21703823
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep;36(3):900-7
pubmed: 10987618
Circulation. 2004 Sep 28;110(13):1814-8
pubmed: 15381653