BACKGROUND: Echocardiography (echo)-quantified LV stroke volume (SV) is widely used to assess systolic performance after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study compared 2 common echo approaches - predicated on flow (Doppler) and linear chamber dimensions (Teichholz) - to volumetric SV and global infarct parameters quantified by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Multimodality imaging was performed as part of a post-AMI registry. For echo, SV was measured by Doppler and Teichholz methods. Cine-CMR was used for volumetric SV and LVEF quantification, and delayed-enhancement (DE) CMR for infarct size. RESULTS: Overall, 142 patients underwent same day echo and CMR. On echo, mean SV by Teichholz (78 ± 17 mL) was slightly higher than Doppler (75 ± 16 mL; Δ = 3 ± 13 mL; P = 0.02). Compared to SV on CMR (78 ± 18 mL), mean difference by Teichholz (Δ = -0.2 ± 14; P = 0.89) was slightly smaller than Doppler (Δ = -3 ± 14; P = 0.02), but limits of agreement were similar between CMR and echo methods (Teichholz: -28, 27 mL, Doppler: -31, 24 mL). For Teichholz, differences with CMR SV were greatest among patients with anteroseptal or lateral wall hypokinesis (P < 0.05). For Doppler, differences were associated with aortic valve abnormalities or root dilation (P = 0.01). SV by both echo methods decreased stepwise in relation to global LV injury as assessed by CMR-quantified LVEF and infarct size (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Teichholz and Doppler calculated SV yield similar magnitude of agreement with CMR. Teichholz differences with CMR increase with septal or lateral wall contractile dysfunction, whereas Doppler yields increased offsets in patients with aortic remodeling.
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography (echo)-quantified LV stroke volume (SV) is widely used to assess systolic performance after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study compared 2 common echo approaches - predicated on flow (Doppler) and linear chamber dimensions (Teichholz) - to volumetric SV and global infarct parameters quantified by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Multimodality imaging was performed as part of a post-AMI registry. For echo, SV was measured by Doppler and Teichholz methods. Cine-CMR was used for volumetric SV and LVEF quantification, and delayed-enhancement (DE) CMR for infarct size. RESULTS: Overall, 142 patients underwent same day echo and CMR. On echo, mean SV by Teichholz (78 ± 17 mL) was slightly higher than Doppler (75 ± 16 mL; Δ = 3 ± 13 mL; P = 0.02). Compared to SV on CMR (78 ± 18 mL), mean difference by Teichholz (Δ = -0.2 ± 14; P = 0.89) was slightly smaller than Doppler (Δ = -3 ± 14; P = 0.02), but limits of agreement were similar between CMR and echo methods (Teichholz: -28, 27 mL, Doppler: -31, 24 mL). For Teichholz, differences with CMR SV were greatest among patients with anteroseptal or lateral wall hypokinesis (P < 0.05). For Doppler, differences were associated with aortic valve abnormalities or root dilation (P = 0.01). SV by both echo methods decreased stepwise in relation to global LV injury as assessed by CMR-quantified LVEF and infarct size (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Teichholz and Doppler calculated SV yield similar magnitude of agreement with CMR. Teichholz differences with CMR increase with septal or lateral wall contractile dysfunction, whereas Doppler yields increased offsets in patients with aortic remodeling.
Authors: H Thiele; E Nagel; I Paetsch; B Schnackenburg; A Bornstedt; M Kouwenhoven; A Wahl; G Schuler; E Fleck Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: E C Jones; R B Devereux; M J Roman; J E Liu; D Fishman; E T Lee; T K Welty; R R Fabsitz; B V Howard Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Miguel A Quiñones; Pamela S Douglas; Elyse Foster; John Gorcsan; Jannet F Lewis; Alan S Pearlman; Jack Rychik; Ernesto E Salcedo; James B Seward; J Geoffrey Stevenson; Daniel M Thys; Howard H Weitz; William A Zoghbi; Mark A Creager; William L Winters; Michael Elnicki; John W Hirshfeld; Beverly H Lorell; George P Rodgers; Cynthia M Tracy; Howard H Weitz Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: William A Zoghbi; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Elyse Foster; Paul A Grayburn; Carol D Kraft; Robert A Levine; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Catherine M Otto; Miguel A Quinones; Harry Rakowski; William J Stewart; Alan Waggoner; Neil J Weissman Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Mai T Lønnebakken; Eva Gerdts; Kurt Boman; Kristian Wachtell; Björn Dahlöf; Richard B Devereux Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: M M Graham; P D Faris; W A Ghali; P D Galbraith; C M Norris; J T Badry; L B Mitchell; M J Curtis; M L Knudtson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Johannes J van Lieshout; Karin Toska; Erik Jan van Lieshout; Morten Eriksen; Lars Walløe; Karel H Wesseling Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2003-07-08 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Arvin H Soepriatna; Frederick W Damen; Pavlos P Vlachos; Craig J Goergen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Laura Flannery; Muhammad Etiwy; Alexander Camacho; Ran Liu; Nilay Patel; Arpi Tavil-Shatelyan; Varsha K Tanguturi; Jacob P Dal-Bianco; Evin Yucel; Rahul Sakhuja; Arminder S Jassar; Nathaniel B Langer; Ignacio Inglessis; Jonathan J Passeri; Judy Hung; Sammy Elmariah Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Alexander Volodarskiy; Razia Sultana; Meridith P Pollie; Brian Yum; Lakshmi Nambiar; Romina Tafreshi; Hannah W Mitlak; Arindam RoyChoudhury; Evelyn M Horn; Ingrid Hriljac; Nupoor Narula; Sijun Kim; Lishomwa Ndhlovu; Parag Goyal; Monika M Safford; Leslee Shaw; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 24.094