Elif Seda Selamet Tierney1, Danielle Hollenbeck-Pringle2, Caroline K Lee2, Karen Altmann2, Carolyn Dunbar-Masterson2, Fraser Golding2, Minmin Lu2, Stephen G Miller2, Kimberly Molina2, Shobha Natarajan2, Carolyn L Taylor2, Felicia Trachtenberg2, Steven D Colan2. 1. From the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (E.S.S.T.); New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA (D.H.-P., M.L., F.T.); Department of Pediatrics, St. Louis Children's Hospital, Washington University, MO (C.K.L.); Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Medical Center, Columbia University (K.A.); Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, MA (C.D.-M., S.D.C.); Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, ON, Canada (F.G.); Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (S.G.M.); Department of Pediatrics, Primary Children's Medical Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (K.M.); Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, CA (S.N.); and Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Children's Hospital of South Carolina, Charleston (C.L.T.). tierneys@stanford.edu. 2. From the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (E.S.S.T.); New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA (D.H.-P., M.L., F.T.); Department of Pediatrics, St. Louis Children's Hospital, Washington University, MO (C.K.L.); Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Medical Center, Columbia University (K.A.); Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, MA (C.D.-M., S.D.C.); Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, ON, Canada (F.G.); Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (S.G.M.); Department of Pediatrics, Primary Children's Medical Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (K.M.); Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, CA (S.N.); and Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Children's Hospital of South Carolina, Charleston (C.L.T.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple echocardiographic methods are used to measure left ventricular size and function. Clinical management is based on individual evaluations and longitudinal trends. The Pediatric Heart Network VVV study (Ventricular Volume Variability) in pediatric patients with dilated cardiomyopathy has reported reproducibility of several of these measures, and how disease state and number of beats impact their reproducibility. In this study, we investigated the impact of observer and sonographer variation on reproducibility of dimension, area, and volume methods to determine the best method for both individual and sequential evaluations. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 8 centers, echocardiograms were obtained on 169 patients prospectively. During the same visit, 2 different sonographers acquired the same imaging protocol on each patient. Each acquisition was analyzed by 2 different observers; first observer analyzed the first acquisition twice. Intraobserver, interobserver, interacquisition, and interobserver-acquisition (different observers and different acquisition) reproducibility were assessed on measurements of left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, area, and volume. Left ventricular shortening fraction, ejection fraction, mass, and fractional area change were calculated. Percent difference was calculated as (interobservation difference/mean)×100. Interobserver reproducibility for both acquisitions was better for both volume and dimension measurements (P≤0.002) compared with area measurements, whereas intraobserver, interacquisition (for both observers), and interobserver-acquisition reproducibilities (for both observer-acquisition sets) were best for volume measurements (P≤0.01). Overall, interobserver-acquisition percent differences were significantly higher than interobserver and interacquisition percent differences (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, compared with dimension and area methods, left ventricular measurements by volume method have the best reproducibility in settings where assessment is not performed by the same personnel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00123071.
BACKGROUND: Multiple echocardiographic methods are used to measure left ventricular size and function. Clinical management is based on individual evaluations and longitudinal trends. The Pediatric Heart Network VVV study (Ventricular Volume Variability) in pediatric patients with dilated cardiomyopathy has reported reproducibility of several of these measures, and how disease state and number of beats impact their reproducibility. In this study, we investigated the impact of observer and sonographer variation on reproducibility of dimension, area, and volume methods to determine the best method for both individual and sequential evaluations. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 8 centers, echocardiograms were obtained on 169 patients prospectively. During the same visit, 2 different sonographers acquired the same imaging protocol on each patient. Each acquisition was analyzed by 2 different observers; first observer analyzed the first acquisition twice. Intraobserver, interobserver, interacquisition, and interobserver-acquisition (different observers and different acquisition) reproducibility were assessed on measurements of left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, area, and volume. Left ventricular shortening fraction, ejection fraction, mass, and fractional area change were calculated. Percent difference was calculated as (interobservation difference/mean)×100. Interobserver reproducibility for both acquisitions was better for both volume and dimension measurements (P≤0.002) compared with area measurements, whereas intraobserver, interacquisition (for both observers), and interobserver-acquisition reproducibilities (for both observer-acquisition sets) were best for volume measurements (P≤0.01). Overall, interobserver-acquisition percent differences were significantly higher than interobserver and interacquisition percent differences (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, compared with dimension and area methods, left ventricular measurements by volume method have the best reproducibility in settings where assessment is not performed by the same personnel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00123071.
Authors: Irene D Lytrivi; Puneet Bhatla; H Helen Ko; Jen Yau; Miwa K Geiger; Rowan Walsh; Ira A Parness; Shubhika Srivastava; James C Nielsen Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Sunil Nayyar; Anthony Magalski; Taiyeb M Khumri; Madhuri Idupulapati; Casey N Stoner; Lisa L Kusnetzky; Tina R Coggins; Becky A Morris; Michael L Main Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Steven D Colan; Girish Shirali; Renee Margossian; Dianne Gallagher; Karen Altmann; Charles Canter; Shan Chen; Fraser Golding; Elizabeth Radojewski; Michael Camitta; Michael Carboni; Jack Rychik; Mario Stylianou; Lloyd Y Tani; Elif Seda Selamet Tierney; Yanli Wang; Lynn A Sleeper Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Caroline K Lee; Renee Margossian; Lynn A Sleeper; Charles E Canter; Shan Chen; Lloyd Y Tani; Girish Shirali; Anita Szwast; Elif Seda Selamet Tierney; M Jay Campbell; Fraser Golding; Yanli Wang; Karen Altmann; Steven D Colan Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Kimberly M Molina; Peter Shrader; Steven D Colan; Seema Mital; Renee Margossian; Lynn A Sleeper; Girish Shirali; Piers Barker; Charles E Canter; Karen Altmann; Elizabeth Radojewski; Elif Seda Selamet Tierney; Jack Rychik; Lloyd Y Tani Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Robert E Shaddy; Mark M Boucek; Daphne T Hsu; Robert J Boucek; Charles E Canter; Lynn Mahony; Robert D Ross; Elfriede Pahl; Elizabeth D Blume; Debra A Dodd; David N Rosenthal; Jeri Burr; Bernie LaSalle; Richard Holubkov; Mary Ann Lukas; Lloyd Y Tani Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eva Maret; Lars Brudin; Lena Lindstrom; Eva Nylander; Jan L Ohlsson; Jan E Engvall Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Peter C Frommelt; L LuAnn Minich; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Karen Altmann; Joseph Camarda; Meryl S Cohen; Steven D Colan; Andreea Dragulescu; Michele A Frommelt; Tiffanie R Johnson; John P Kovalchin; Lina Lin; Joseph Mahgerefteh; Arni Nutting; David A Parra; Gail D Pearson; Ricardo Pignatelli; Ritu Sachdeva; Brian D Soriano; Christopher Spurney; Shubhika Srivastava; Christopher J Statile; Jessica Stelter; Mario Stylianou; Poonam P Thankavel; E Seda Tierney; Mary E van der Velde; Leo Lopez Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Eduardo B Carvalho; Isalira P R Ramos; Alvaro F S Nascimento; Guilherme V Brasil; Debora B Mello; Martin Oti; Michael Sammeth; Maria T Bahia; Antonio C Campos de Carvalho; Adriana B Carvalho Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Jan M Leerink; Esmée C de Baat; Remy Merkx; Elizabeth A M Feijen; Wouter E M Kok; Annelies M C Mavinkurve-Groothuis; Jacqueline Loonen; Helena J H van der Pal; Louise Bellersen; Chris L de Korte; Leontien C M Kremer; Elvira C van Dalen; Livia Kapusta Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 4.442