Literature DB >> 28185312

Reproducibility and experience dependence of echocardiographic indices of left ventricular function: Side-by-side comparison of global longitudinal strain and ejection fraction.

Diego Medvedofsky1, Kalie Kebed1, Luke Laffin1, Jeremy Stone1, Karima Addetia1, Roberto M Lang1, Victor Mor-Avi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) are recommended by the current echocardiographic chamber quantification guidelines, these measurements are not performed routinely. Because EF measurements rely on manual tracing of LV boundaries, and are subject to inter-reader variability and experience dependence, we hypothesized that semiautomated GLS measurements using speckle tracking would be more reproducible and less experience-dependent.
METHODS: Images from 30 patients were analyzed to obtain biplane EF using manual tracing. GLS was measured in three long-axis views using EchoInsight software (Epsilon Imaging) that automatically detects LV endocardial boundary, which is edited manually as necessary and is then automatically tracked throughout the cardiac cycle. All measurements were performed by an expert echocardiographer and three first-year cardiology fellows.
RESULTS: Semiautomated GLS analysis showed excellent correlation (r=.98) and small bias (-1.0±13% of measured value) between the experienced and less experienced readers, superior to EF (r=.91, bias 7.3±16%). Also, in repeated measurements, GLS showed higher intra-class correlation (ICC=.98) than EF (ICC=.89). Additionally, GLS analysis required ~1 minute per patient, while biplane EF measurements took twice as long.
CONCLUSIONS: Semiautomated GLS measurements are fast, less experience-dependent, and more reproducible than conventional EF measurements. This is probably because, irrespective of experience, the readers' choice of boundary position varies less when asked to refine the automated detection than to draw borders without initial clues. This technique may facilitate the workflow of a busy laboratory and make a step forward toward incorporating quantitative analysis into everyday echocardiography practice.
© 2017, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  automated analysis; ejection fraction; left ventricular function; myocardial strain

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28185312     DOI: 10.1111/echo.13446

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Echocardiography        ISSN: 0742-2822            Impact factor:   1.724


  11 in total

1.  Left ventricular global longitudinal strain calculated from manually traced endocardial border lengths utilizing the images for routine ejection fraction measurement by biplane method of disks.

Authors:  Kazunori Okada; Sanae Kaga; Minami Araki; Kosuke Tsujita; Ayaka Yoshikawa; Mizuki Hara; Yoichi Sakamoto; Nobuo Masauzi; Taisei Mikami
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 1.314

2.  Left ventricular strain and arterial hypertension: Is longitudinal strain ready for primetime?

Authors:  Marijana Tadic; Cesare Cuspidi
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 3.738

3.  Evaluation of Cardiac Function in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease with Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain.

Authors:  Marielle Morissens; Tatiana Besse-Hammer; Marie-Agnès Azerad; Andre Efira; José Castro Rodriguez
Journal:  J Transl Int Med       Date:  2020-05-09

4.  Myocardial strain imaging: review of general principles, validation, and sources of discrepancies.

Authors:  M S Amzulescu; M De Craene; H Langet; A Pasquet; D Vancraeynest; A C Pouleur; J L Vanoverschelde; B L Gerber
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  Global longitudinal strain is a more reproducible measure of left ventricular function than ejection fraction regardless of echocardiographic training.

Authors:  Sigve Karlsen; Thomas Dahlslett; Bjørnar Grenne; Benthe Sjøli; Otto Smiseth; Thor Edvardsen; Harald Brunvand
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 2.062

6.  Systolic Dysfunction in Systemic Sclerosis: Prevalence and Prognostic Implications.

Authors:  Anders H Tennøe; Klaus Murbræch; Johanna C Andreassen; Håvard Fretheim; Øyvind Midtvedt; Torhild Garen; Håvard Dalen; Einar Gude; Arne Andreassen; Svend Aakhus; Øyvind Molberg; Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold
Journal:  ACR Open Rheumatol       Date:  2019-05-31

7.  Segmental Tissue Speckle Tracking Predicts the Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Srisakul Chaichuum; Shuo-Ju Chiang; Masao Daimon; Su-Chen Chang; Chih-Lin Chan; Chu-Ying Hsu; Hsiang-Ho Chen; Ching-Li Tseng
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-02-03

8.  Impact of a training program incorporating cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on the accuracy and reproducibility of two-dimensional echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction.

Authors:  Yosuke Nabeshima; Hidehiro Namisaki; Toshihiro Teshima; Yasuhiko Kurashige; Akiko Kakio; Azusa Fukumitsu; Yutaka Otsuji; Masaaki Takeuchi
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 2.062

9.  Prediction of cardiac events using fully automated GLS and BNP titers in patients with known or suspected heart failure.

Authors:  Kyoko Otani; Yukie Higa; Tetsuji Kitano; Yosuke Nabeshima; Masaaki Takeuchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Evaluation of Left Ventricular Myocardial Work Performance in Patients Undergoing On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

Authors:  Konstantina Spetsotaki; Rashad Zayat; Srinath Donuru; Ruediger Autschbach; Heike Schnoering; Nima Hatam
Journal:  Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 1.520

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.