Jeffrey A Alexis1, Benedict Costello2,3, Leah M Iles2,3, Andris H Ellims2,3, James L Hare2,3, Andrew J Taylor4,5. 1. School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. 2. Heart Centre, Alfred Hospital, 3rd Floor, WS Philip Block, The Alfred, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. 3. Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Heart Centre, Alfred Hospital, 3rd Floor, WS Philip Block, The Alfred, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. a.taylor@alfred.org.au. 5. Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia. a.taylor@alfred.org.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the ability of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to correctly identify abnormal left ventricular (LV) size, function, and mass when compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Whilst numerous studies have compared TTE and CMR with respect to correlation between measurements and study reproducibility, few have employed categorical analysis relevant to clinical practice. METHODS: Two hundred and fifteen consecutive patients who underwent both TTE and CMR were evaluated for the presence of abnormal LV size, systolic function, and mass. Abnormal LV systolic function was further categorized into grades (mild, moderate, and severe). Quantification of LV morphology and function was performed on TTE and CMR according to published guidelines. The level of agreement between TTE and CMR was compared across binary and categorical variables using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Compared to CMR, TTE demonstrated excellent agreement in identification of abnormal versus normal function (κ = 0.87). However, agreement across grades of LV function was less strong (κ = 0.63). Whilst agreement for identification of severe LV dysfunction was good (κ = 0.68), this would still lead to misclassification of severe dysfunction in approximately one in seven cases. Agreement between TTE and CMR was moderate to good for identification of LV dilation (κ = 0.43-0.63), but poor for identification of increased mass (κ = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst in clinical practice TTE performs well in identification of normal versus abnormal systolic function, it has substantial limitations across grades of dysfunction and in the assessment of LV size and mass. These limitations have important implications when considering management decisions for patients based on thresholds of LV morphology or function.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the ability of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to correctly identify abnormal left ventricular (LV) size, function, and mass when compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Whilst numerous studies have compared TTE and CMR with respect to correlation between measurements and study reproducibility, few have employed categorical analysis relevant to clinical practice. METHODS: Two hundred and fifteen consecutive patients who underwent both TTE and CMR were evaluated for the presence of abnormal LV size, systolic function, and mass. Abnormal LV systolic function was further categorized into grades (mild, moderate, and severe). Quantification of LV morphology and function was performed on TTE and CMR according to published guidelines. The level of agreement between TTE and CMR was compared across binary and categorical variables using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Compared to CMR, TTE demonstrated excellent agreement in identification of abnormal versus normal function (κ = 0.87). However, agreement across grades of LV function was less strong (κ = 0.63). Whilst agreement for identification of severe LV dysfunction was good (κ = 0.68), this would still lead to misclassification of severe dysfunction in approximately one in seven cases. Agreement between TTE and CMR was moderate to good for identification of LV dilation (κ = 0.43-0.63), but poor for identification of increased mass (κ = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst in clinical practice TTE performs well in identification of normal versus abnormal systolic function, it has substantial limitations across grades of dysfunction and in the assessment of LV size and mass. These limitations have important implications when considering management decisions for patients based on thresholds of LV morphology or function.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac magnetic resonance; Left ventricular function; Mass; Transthoracic echocardiography; Volume
Authors: Faiez Zannad; John J V McMurray; Henry Krum; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Karl Swedberg; Harry Shi; John Vincent; Stuart J Pocock; Bertram Pitt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kenneth Dickstein; Alain Cohen-Solal; Gerasimos Filippatos; John J V McMurray; Piotr Ponikowski; Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson; Anna Strömberg; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Dan Atar; Arno W Hoes; Andre Keren; Alexandre Mebazaa; Markku Nieminen; Silvia Giuliana Priori; Karl Swedberg Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Shunsuke Natori; Shenghan Lai; J Paul Finn; Antoinette S Gomes; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Gregory Pearson; Shantanu Sinha; Andrew Arai; Joao A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Carly Jenkins; Stuart Moir; Jonathan Chan; Dhrubo Rakhit; Brian Haluska; Thomas H Marwick Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-11-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Alec Vahanian; Ottavio Alfieri; Felicita Andreotti; Manuel J Antunes; Gonzalo Baron-Esquivias; Helmut Baumgartner; Michael Andrew Borger; Thierry P Carrel; Michele De Bonis; Arturo Evangelista; Volkmar Falk; Bernard Iung; Patrizio Lancellotti; Luc Pierard; Susanna Price; Hans-Joachim Schafers; Gerhard Schuler; Janina Stepinska; Karl Swedberg; Johanna Takkenberg; Ulrich Otto Von Oppell; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano; Marian Zembala Journal: G Ital Cardiol (Rome) Date: 2013-03
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Halszka Kamińska; Łukasz A Małek; Marzena Barczuk-Falęcka; Marta Bartoszek; Ewa Strzałkowska-Kominiak; Mikołaj Marszałek; Ewa Brzezik; Michał Brzewski; Bożena Werner Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 4.241