Doo-Youp Kim1, Jung-Hyun Choi2, Geu-Ru Hong3, Se-Joong Rim3, Jang-Young Kim4, Sang-Chol Lee5, Il-Suk Sohn6, Wook-Jin Chung7, Hye-Sun Seo8, Se-Jung Yoon9, Kyoung-Im Cho10, Si-Wan Choi11, Kyung-Jin Lee12. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Bongseng Memorial Hospital, Busan, Korea. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Cardiology, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Division of Cardiology, Heart Center, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Gachon University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea. 8. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Bucheon, Korea. 9. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea. 10. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Busan, Korea. 11. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea. 12. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fundamental echocardiography has some drawbacks in patients with difficult-to-image echocardiograms. The aim of this study is to evaluate impact of contrast echocardiography (CE) on ventricular function assessment and clinical diagnosis in routine clinical echocardiography. METHODS: Two hundred sixty patients were prospectively enrolled over 3 years in 12 medical centers in Korea. General image quality, the number of distinguishable segments, ability to assess regional wall motion, left ventricular (LV) apex and right ventricle (RV) visualization, LV ejection fraction, changes in diagnostic or treatment plan were documented after echocardiography with and without ultrasound contrast agent. RESULTS: Poor or uninterpretable general image was 31% before contrast use, and decreased to 2% (p<0.05) after contrast use. The average number of visualized LV segments was 9.53 before contrast use, and increased to 14.46 (p<0.001) after contrast use. The percentage of poor or not seen LV regional wall motion was decreased from 28.4% to 3.5% (p<0.001). The percentage of poor or not seen LV apex and RV was decreased from 49.4% to 2.4% (p<0.001), from 30.5% to 10.5% (p<0.001), respectively. Changes in diagnostic procedure and treatment plan after CE were 30% and 29.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared to fundamental echocardiography, CE impacted LV function assessment and clinical decision making in Korean patients who undergo routine echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: Fundamental echocardiography has some drawbacks in patients with difficult-to-image echocardiograms. The aim of this study is to evaluate impact of contrast echocardiography (CE) on ventricular function assessment and clinical diagnosis in routine clinical echocardiography. METHODS: Two hundred sixty patients were prospectively enrolled over 3 years in 12 medical centers in Korea. General image quality, the number of distinguishable segments, ability to assess regional wall motion, left ventricular (LV) apex and right ventricle (RV) visualization, LV ejection fraction, changes in diagnostic or treatment plan were documented after echocardiography with and without ultrasound contrast agent. RESULTS: Poor or uninterpretable general image was 31% before contrast use, and decreased to 2% (p<0.05) after contrast use. The average number of visualized LV segments was 9.53 before contrast use, and increased to 14.46 (p<0.001) after contrast use. The percentage of poor or not seen LV regional wall motion was decreased from 28.4% to 3.5% (p<0.001). The percentage of poor or not seen LV apex and RV was decreased from 49.4% to 2.4% (p<0.001), from 30.5% to 10.5% (p<0.001), respectively. Changes in diagnostic procedure and treatment plan after CE were 30% and 29.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared to fundamental echocardiography, CE impacted LV function assessment and clinical decision making in Korean patients who undergo routine echocardiography.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast echocardiography; Koreans; Multicenter study
Authors: M S Dolan; K Riad; A El-Shafei; S Puri; K Tamirisa; M Bierig; J St Vrain; L McKinney; E Havens; K Habermehl; L Pyatt; M Kern; A J Labovitz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Rainer Hoffmann; Stephan von Bardeleben; Jaroslaw D Kasprzak; Adrian C Borges; Folkert ten Cate; Christian Firschke; Stephane Lafitte; Nidal Al-Saadi; Stefanie Kuntz-Hehner; Georg Horstick; Christian Greis; Marc Engelhardt; Jean Louis Vanoverschelde; Harald Becher Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Roxy Senior; Harald Becher; Mark Monaghan; Luciano Agati; Jose Zamorano; Jean Louis Vanoverschelde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2009-03
Authors: Jean-Claude Tardif; Annie Dore; Kwan L Chan; Sue Fagan; Georges Honos; François Marcotte; Eric Yu; Samuel Siu; Jean Dumesnil; Marie Arsenault; Chris Koilpillai; Franco D'onofrio Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.251