Micha T Maeder1,2,3, Sofie Karapanagiotidis1,2, Elizabeth M Dewar1,2, David M Kaye1,2. 1. Heart Failure Research Group, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Heart Center, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Cardiology Division, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the accuracy of the echocardiographic assessment of cardiac index (CI) in subjects with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Thirty-three subjects with LVEF >50%, normal sinus rhythm, and a broad spectrum of hemodynamic profiles underwent echocardiography immediately followed by right heart catheterization. As gold standards, CI was assessed using thermodilution [CI (TD)] and the Fick method [CI (F)]. Echocardiographic CI was assessed by four methods: from the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity time integral and the LVOT diameter as measured [CI (LVOTm)] as well as estimated from body surface area [CI (LVOTe)], and from stroke volume indices assessed using the biplane [CI (BP)] and monoplane [CI (MP)] methods. RESULTS: The mean CI (TD), CI (F), CI (LVOTm), CI (LVOTe), CI (BP), and CI (MP) were 3.0 ± 0.9, 3.1 ± 0.7, 2.8 ± 0.6, 3.3 ± 0.6, 2.0 ± 0.6, and 2.2 ± 0.7 L/min/m(2) . There were modest correlations between CI (TD) and CI (F) and all four noninvasive measures of CI with r(2) values ranging from 0.09 to 0.30. CI (LVOTm) underestimated CI (TD) and CI (F) by 0.3 and 0.3 L/min/m(2) , CI (LVOTe) overestimated CI (TD) and CI (F) by 0.3 and 0.2 L/min/m(2) , and CI (BP) and CI (MP) underestimated CI (TD) and CI (F) by 1.1 and 1.1 L/min/m(2) and 0.9 and 0.9 L/min/m(2) , respectively, with large limits of agreement for all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with nondilated left ventricles with preserved LVEF, flow- or volume-based measures of CI by 2D echocardiography may not accurately reflect CI (TD) and CI (F). Further larger studies are required to verify our findings and to evaluate the accuracy of contrast and 3D echocardiography in this setting.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the accuracy of the echocardiographic assessment of cardiac index (CI) in subjects with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Thirty-three subjects with LVEF >50%, normal sinus rhythm, and a broad spectrum of hemodynamic profiles underwent echocardiography immediately followed by right heart catheterization. As gold standards, CI was assessed using thermodilution [CI (TD)] and the Fick method [CI (F)]. Echocardiographic CI was assessed by four methods: from the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity time integral and the LVOT diameter as measured [CI (LVOTm)] as well as estimated from body surface area [CI (LVOTe)], and from stroke volume indices assessed using the biplane [CI (BP)] and monoplane [CI (MP)] methods. RESULTS: The mean CI (TD), CI (F), CI (LVOTm), CI (LVOTe), CI (BP), and CI (MP) were 3.0 ± 0.9, 3.1 ± 0.7, 2.8 ± 0.6, 3.3 ± 0.6, 2.0 ± 0.6, and 2.2 ± 0.7 L/min/m(2) . There were modest correlations between CI (TD) and CI (F) and all four noninvasive measures of CI with r(2) values ranging from 0.09 to 0.30. CI (LVOTm) underestimated CI (TD) and CI (F) by 0.3 and 0.3 L/min/m(2) , CI (LVOTe) overestimated CI (TD) and CI (F) by 0.3 and 0.2 L/min/m(2) , and CI (BP) and CI (MP) underestimated CI (TD) and CI (F) by 1.1 and 1.1 L/min/m(2) and 0.9 and 0.9 L/min/m(2) , respectively, with large limits of agreement for all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with nondilated left ventricles with preserved LVEF, flow- or volume-based measures of CI by 2D echocardiography may not accurately reflect CI (TD) and CI (F). Further larger studies are required to verify our findings and to evaluate the accuracy of contrast and 3D echocardiography in this setting.
Authors: Erik H Van Iterson; Thomas P Olson; Barry A Borlaug; Bruce D Johnson; Eric M Snyder Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Benjamin W Van Tassell; Peter Westman; Cory Trankle; Sade Johns; Dinesh Kadariya; Leo Buckley; Salvatore Carbone; Antonio Abbate; Frederick Gerard Moeller Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Daniel S Knight; Vivek Muthurangu; James T Brown; Tushar Kotecha; Jennifer A Steeden; Marianna Fontana; Christopher P Denton; J Gerry Coghlan Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Andrea Natali; Lorenzo Nesti; Iacopo Fabiani; Enrico Calogero; Vitantonio Di Bello Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 9.951