Hee-Young Seo1, Seung-Pyo Lee2, Jun-Bean Park1, Joo Myung Lee1, Eun-Ah Park3, Sung-A Chang4, Hyung-Kwan Kim1, Sung-Ji Park4, Whal Lee3, Yong-Jin Kim1, Sang-Chol Lee4, Seung Woo Park4, Dae-Won Sohn1, Yeon Hyeon Choe4. 1. Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: splee0624@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 4. Cardiovascular Imaging Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased left ventricular (LV) mass is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and its accurate assessment is important. The aim of this study was to analyze the degree of difference among various methods of LV mass calculation based on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) measurements and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) measurements, especially in patients with aortic stenosis with varying degrees of LV hypertrophy (LVH). The mechanism underlying this disagreement was also investigated. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis and 33 control subjects matched for age, sex, body weight, and height were enrolled in this prospective observational cohort study. All patients underwent TTE and CMR imaging. LV mass index (LVMI) was calculated using three formulas on the basis of TTE measurements (the Penn-cube, American Society of Echocardiography [ASE], and Teichholz methods) and compared with measurements obtained using CMR, the reference method. RESULTS: Although all methods calculated using TTE measurements showed good correlations with CMR measurements, LVMI measured using the Penn-cube and ASE methods tended to be larger than LVMI measured using CMR (difference in LVMI by the Penn-cube and ASE methods, 59.3 ± 29.7 and 30.6 ± 22.3 g/m², respectively). This tendency decreased with the Teichholz method (difference in LVMI by the Teichholz method, 22.9 ± 19.1 g/m²). The degree of LVMI overestimation was significantly different among the three methods (P < .001 by one-way analysis of variance), which was more significant in patients with LVH, especially with the Penn-cube method (differences between CMR and TTE measurements in patients with aortic stenosis and LVH, 66.3 ± 34.8 vs 31.2 ± 26.6 vs 15.5 ± 20.9 g/m² for the Penn-cube, ASE, and Teichholz methods, respectively; P < .001 with post hoc Tukey analysis). There was a good correlation between LVMI and LV diameter-to-length ratio (r = 0.468, P < .001), which suggested that the left ventricle takes on a more globular shape with the increase of LVMI, resulting in a significant deviation from the basic assumptions on which the Penn-cube and ASE methods were built. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods of calculating LVMI from echocardiographic measurements carry a tendency to measure LVMI larger than methods based on CMR measurements, which was more significant in patients with LVH. The change of the left ventricle's shape with LVH may be a plausible explanation for this, and a correction method may be needed when calculating LVMI from echocardiographic measurements, especially in patients with LVH and smaller body size.
BACKGROUND: Increased left ventricular (LV) mass is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and its accurate assessment is important. The aim of this study was to analyze the degree of difference among various methods of LV mass calculation based on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) measurements and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) measurements, especially in patients with aortic stenosis with varying degrees of LV hypertrophy (LVH). The mechanism underlying this disagreement was also investigated. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis and 33 control subjects matched for age, sex, body weight, and height were enrolled in this prospective observational cohort study. All patients underwent TTE and CMR imaging. LV mass index (LVMI) was calculated using three formulas on the basis of TTE measurements (the Penn-cube, American Society of Echocardiography [ASE], and Teichholz methods) and compared with measurements obtained using CMR, the reference method. RESULTS: Although all methods calculated using TTE measurements showed good correlations with CMR measurements, LVMI measured using the Penn-cube and ASE methods tended to be larger than LVMI measured using CMR (difference in LVMI by the Penn-cube and ASE methods, 59.3 ± 29.7 and 30.6 ± 22.3 g/m², respectively). This tendency decreased with the Teichholz method (difference in LVMI by the Teichholz method, 22.9 ± 19.1 g/m²). The degree of LVMI overestimation was significantly different among the three methods (P < .001 by one-way analysis of variance), which was more significant in patients with LVH, especially with the Penn-cube method (differences between CMR and TTE measurements in patients with aortic stenosis and LVH, 66.3 ± 34.8 vs 31.2 ± 26.6 vs 15.5 ± 20.9 g/m² for the Penn-cube, ASE, and Teichholz methods, respectively; P < .001 with post hoc Tukey analysis). There was a good correlation between LVMI and LV diameter-to-length ratio (r = 0.468, P < .001), which suggested that the left ventricle takes on a more globular shape with the increase of LVMI, resulting in a significant deviation from the basic assumptions on which the Penn-cube and ASE methods were built. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods of calculating LVMI from echocardiographic measurements carry a tendency to measure LVMI larger than methods based on CMR measurements, which was more significant in patients with LVH. The change of the left ventricle's shape with LVH may be a plausible explanation for this, and a correction method may be needed when calculating LVMI from echocardiographic measurements, especially in patients with LVH and smaller body size.
Authors: Maria Angela Losi; Massimo Imbriaco; Grazia Canciello; Filomena Pacelli; Carlo Di Nardo; Raffaella Lombardi; Raffaele Izzo; Costantino Mancusi; Andrea Ponsiglione; Serena Dell'Aversana; Alberto Cuocolo; Giovanni de Simone; Bruno Trimarco; Emanuele Barbato Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Tetz C Lee; Zhezhen Jin; Shunichi Homma; Koki Nakanishi; Mitchell S V Elkind; Tatjana Rundek; Aylin Tugcu; Kenji Matsumoto; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Ciara O'Brien; Ian Britton; Gauri R Karur; Robert M Iwanochko; Chantal F Morel; Elsie T Nguyen; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; Anna Woo; Kate Hanneman Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-06-11
Authors: Kai Lin; Jeremy D Collins; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Debiao Li; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Sergio Gamaza-Chulián; Enrique Díaz-Retamino; Fátima González-Testón; José Carlos Gaitero; María José Castillo; Raquel Alfaro; Elías Rodríguez; Eva González-Caballero; Antonio Martín-Santana Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 2.298