Literature DB >> 20886372

A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance.

Cameron J Holloway1, Lindsay M Edwards, Oliver J Rider, Angela Fast, Kieran Clarke, Jane M Francis, Saul G Myerson, Stefan Neubauer.   

Abstract

To determine the accuracy of visual analysis of left ventricular (LV) function in comparison with the accepted quantitative gold standard method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cine CMR imaging was performed at 1.5 T on 44 patients with a range of ejection fractions (EF, 5-80%). Clinicians (n = 18) were asked to visually assess EF after sequentially being shown cine images of a four chamber (horizontal long axis; HLA), two chamber (vertical long axis; VLA) and a short axis stack (SAS) and results were compared to a commercially available analysis package. There were strong correlations between visual and quantitative assessment. However, the EF was underestimated in all categories (by 8.4% for HLA, 8.4% for HLA + VLA and 7.9% for HLA + VLA + SAS, P all < 0.01) and particularly underestimated in mild LV impairment (17.4%, P < 0.01), less so for moderate (4.9%) and not for severe impairment (1%). Assessing more than one view of the heart improved visual assessment of LV, EF, however, clinicians underestimated EF by 8.4% on average, with particular inaccuracy in those with mild dysfunction. Given the important clinical information provided by LV assessment, quantitative analysis is recommended for accurate assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20886372     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-010-9706-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  16 in total

1.  Consistency of echocardiographic ejection fraction: variation and 'drift' by interpreter and practice site.

Authors:  S Bansal; J L Vacek; D Ehler
Journal:  Eur J Echocardiogr       Date:  2002-03

2.  Subjective visual echocardiographic estimate of left ventricular ejection fraction as an alternative to conventional echocardiographic methods: comparison with contrast angiography.

Authors:  X Mueller; J C Stauffer; A Jaussi; J J Goy; L Kappenberger
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.882

3.  Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.

Authors:  Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Clinical assessment of central venous pressure in the critically ill.

Authors:  D J Cook
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.378

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.

Authors:  Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-01-20       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Visual estimation of ejection fraction by two-dimensional echocardiography: the learning curve.

Authors:  O Akinboboye; J Sumner; A Gopal; D King; Z Shen; P Bardfeld; L Blanz; E J Brown
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.882

8.  Two-dimensional echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction: prospective analysis of what constitutes an adequate determination.

Authors:  R B Stamm; B A Carabello; D L Mayers; R P Martin
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 4.749

9.  A prospective comparison of echocardiographic wall motion score index and radionuclide ejection fraction in predicting outcome following acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  G I Galasko; S Basu; A Lahiri; R Senior
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.994

10.  Determination of left ventricular ejection fraction by visual estimation during real-time two-dimensional echocardiography.

Authors:  S Rich; A Sheikh; J Gallastegui; G T Kondos; T Mason; W Lam
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 4.749

View more
  4 in total

1.  Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Kerim Esenboğa; Mustafa Kılıçkap; Elif Peker; Volkan Kozluca; Çiğdem Koca; Cansın Tulunay Kaya; Demet Menekşe Gerede Uludağ; İrem Dinçer
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 1.596

Review 2.  Cardiovascular imaging 2011 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Ricardo A Costa; Hiram G Bezerra; Johan H C Reiber; Frank J Rybicki; Paul Schoenhagen; Arthur A Stillman; Johan De Sutter; Nico R L Van de Veire; Ernst E van der Wall
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes: it depends on the imaging method.

Authors:  Peter W Wood; Jonathan B Choy; Navin C Nanda; Harald Becher
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 1.724

4.  Quantification of Right and Left Ventricular Function in Cardiac MR Imaging: Comparison of Semiautomatic and Manual Segmentation Algorithms.

Authors:  Miguel Souto; Lambert Raul Masip; Miguel Couto; Jorge Juan Suárez-Cuenca; Amparo Martínez; Pablo G Tahoces; Jose Martin Carreira; Pierre Croisille
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2013-04-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.