Piercarlo Ballo1, Stefano Nistri2, Maurizio Galderisi3, Donato Mele4, Andrea Rossi5, Frank L Dini6, Iacopo Olivotto7, Maria Angela Losi8, Antonello D'Andrea9, Alfredo Zuppiroli10, Giovanni Maria Santoro11, Sergio Mondillo12, Federico Gentile13. 1. Cardiology Unit, S. Maria Annunziata Hospital, Florence, Italy. 2. CMSR Veneto Medica, Altavilla Vicentina, Italy. 3. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University Hospital, Naples, Italy. 4. Department of Cardiology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 5. Cardiology Division, Borgo Trento Hospital, Verona, Italy. 6. Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 7. Careggi University Hospital, Referral Center for Cardiomyopathies, Florence, Italy. 8. Department of Clinical Medicine, Cardiovascular and Immunological Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy. 9. Department of Cardiology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 10. Regional Health Agency of Tuscany, Florence, Italy. 11. Cardiology Unit, Nuovo S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy. 12. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. 13. Centro Medico Diagnostico, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS: The determinants of discrepancies among two-dimensional echocardiographic (2D-E) methods for left atrial volume (LAV) assessment are poorly investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Maximal LAV was measured in 613 individuals (282 healthy subjects,180 athletes, and 151 hypertensives; age 45 ± 20 years, 62% male) using the ellipsoid model (LAVEllips), the area-length method (LAVAL), and the Simpson's rule (LAVSimps). On the basis of a mathematical model, two left atrial (LA) geometry indexes were tested as predictors of discrepancies between methods: the ratio between LA medial-lateral diameter (MLD) and LA anteroposterior diameter (APD); and the ratio between LA area in the four-chamber view and that of an ellipse with the same diameters [deviation from ellipse (DE)-coefficient]. Discrepancies among methods were consistently present in the overall population and across all study groups. MLD/APD and the DE-coefficient together predicted 76 and 68% of differences between biplane LAVAL and LAVEllips, and between biplane LAVSimps and LAVEllips, respectively. The DE-coefficient was the only determinant of LAVAL/LAVSimps difference (β = 0.167, P < 0.0001). Body mass index was the strongest predictor of discrepancies between single-plane and biplane approaches of LAVAL (β = 0.427, P < 0.0001) and LAVSimps (β = 0.424, P < 0.0001). In additional analyses, biplane LAVAL showed the best agreement with LAV obtained by three-dimensional echocardiography and the best reproducibility and repeatability. CONCLUSION: LA geometry is the main determinant of inconsistencies between 2D-E methods for measuring maximal LAV. Body mass index is the strongest determinant of differences between single-plane and biplane approaches. Different 2D-E methods cannot be used interchangeably for diagnosis and follow-up. The biplane area-length method should be preferred, particularly in overweight-obese subjects. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The determinants of discrepancies among two-dimensional echocardiographic (2D-E) methods for left atrial volume (LAV) assessment are poorly investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Maximal LAV was measured in 613 individuals (282 healthy subjects,180 athletes, and 151 hypertensives; age 45 ± 20 years, 62% male) using the ellipsoid model (LAVEllips), the area-length method (LAVAL), and the Simpson's rule (LAVSimps). On the basis of a mathematical model, two left atrial (LA) geometry indexes were tested as predictors of discrepancies between methods: the ratio between LA medial-lateral diameter (MLD) and LA anteroposterior diameter (APD); and the ratio between LA area in the four-chamber view and that of an ellipse with the same diameters [deviation from ellipse (DE)-coefficient]. Discrepancies among methods were consistently present in the overall population and across all study groups. MLD/APD and the DE-coefficient together predicted 76 and 68% of differences between biplane LAVAL and LAVEllips, and between biplane LAVSimps and LAVEllips, respectively. The DE-coefficient was the only determinant of LAVAL/LAVSimps difference (β = 0.167, P < 0.0001). Body mass index was the strongest predictor of discrepancies between single-plane and biplane approaches of LAVAL (β = 0.427, P < 0.0001) and LAVSimps (β = 0.424, P < 0.0001). In additional analyses, biplane LAVAL showed the best agreement with LAV obtained by three-dimensional echocardiography and the best reproducibility and repeatability. CONCLUSION: LA geometry is the main determinant of inconsistencies between 2D-E methods for measuring maximal LAV. Body mass index is the strongest determinant of differences between single-plane and biplane approaches. Different 2D-E methods cannot be used interchangeably for diagnosis and follow-up. The biplane area-length method should be preferred, particularly in overweight-obese subjects. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.