Literature DB >> 15618026

Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: a multi-centre comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced echocardiography.

Rainer Hoffmann1, Stephan von Bardeleben, Folkert ten Cate, Adrian C Borges, Jaroslaw Kasprzak, Christian Firschke, Stephane Lafitte, Nidal Al-Saadi, Stefanie Kuntz-Hehner, Marc Engelhardt, Harald Becher, Jean Louis Vanoverschelde.   

Abstract

AIMS: To assess the agreement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determinations from unenhanced echocardiography, contrast-enhanced echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and cineventriculography as well as the inter-observer agreement for each method. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In 120 patients, with evenly distributed EF-groups (> 55, 35-55, < 35%), cineventriculography, unenhanced echocardiography with second harmonic imaging, and contrast echocardiography at low mechanical index with iv administration of SonoVue were performed. In addition, cardiac MRI at 1.5 T using a steady-state free precession sequence was performed in a subset of 55 patients. On-site, and two blinded off-site assessments were performed for unenhanced and contrast echocardiography, cineventriculography, and MRI according to pre-defined standards. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were determined to assess inter-observer reliability between all three readers (i.e. one on-site and two off-site). EF was 56.2 +/- 18.3% by cineventriculography, 54.1 +/- 12.9% by MRI, 50.9 +/- 15.3% by unenhanced echocardiography, and 54.6 +/- 16.8% by contrast echocardiography. Correlation on EF between cineventriculography and echocardiography increased from 0.72 with unenhanced echocardiography to 0.83 with contrast echocardiography (P < 0.05). Similarly, correlation on EF between MRI and echocardiography increased from 0.60 with unenhanced echocardiography to 0.77 with contrast echocardiography (P < 0.05). The inter-observer reliability ICC was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94) in contrast echocardiography, followed by cardiac MRI (0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.92), cineventriculography (0.80; 95% CI 0.74-0.85), and unenhanced echocardiography (0.79; 95% CI 0.74-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced echocardiography resulted in slight underestimation of EF and only moderate correlation compared with cineventriculography and MRI. Contrast echocardiography resulted in more accurate EF and significantly improved correlation with cineventriculography and MRI. Contrast echocardiography significantly improved inter-observer agreement on EF compared with unenhanced echocardiography. Inter-observer reliability on EF using contrast echocardiography reaches a level comparable to MRI and is better than those obtained by cineventriculography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15618026     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  72 in total

Review 1.  The role of cardiac ultrasound in stem cell therapy.

Authors:  Andrew M Kahn; Anthony N Demaria
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2009-01-22       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 2.  Novel techniques for assessment of left ventricular systolic function.

Authors:  Sonal Chandra; Hicham Skali; Ron Blankstein
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.214

3.  Ejection fraction derived by noninvasive modalities versus left ventricular angiographic determination.

Authors:  Tahir Tak
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2005-05

4.  Noninvasive modalities for the assessment of left ventricular function: all are equal but some are more equal than others.

Authors:  Tiong Keng Lim; Roxy Senior
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Contrast-enhanced versus non-enhanced three-dimensional echocardiography of left ventricular volumes.

Authors:  J A van der Heide; H F J Mannaerts; L Yang; G T Sieswerda; C A Visser; O Kamp
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 6.  Contrast echocardiography: an update.

Authors:  Rajesh K Chelliah; Roxy Senior
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Towards a better risk stratification for sudden cardiac death in patients with structural heart disease.

Authors:  K Kraaier; P M J Verhorst; P F H M van Dessel; A A M Wilde; M F Scholten
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 8.  [Assessment of systolic function in patients with poor echogenicity: echocardiographic methods].

Authors:  F Weidemann; D Liu; M Niemann; S Herrmann; H Hu; P D Gaudron; G Ertl; K Hu
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 1.443

9.  Incidence and clinical significance of mitral regurgitation in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Dariusch Haghi; Stefanie Röhm; Tim Suselbeck; Martin Borggrefe; Theano Papavassiliu
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 5.460

10.  Assessing the Cardiac Toxicity of Chemotherapeutic Agents: Role of Echocardiography.

Authors:  Timothy C Tan; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep       Date:  2012-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.