Real Lebeau1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Karim Serri1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Maria Di Lorenzo1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Claude Sauvé1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Van Hoai Viet Le1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Vicky Soulières1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Malak El-Rayes1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Maude Pagé1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Chiméne Zaïani1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Jérôme Garot1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Frédéric Poulin1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. 1. Lebeau R, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 2. Serri K, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 3. Di Lorenzo M, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 4. Sauvé C, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 5. Le V H V, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 6. Soulières V, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 7. El-Rayes M, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 8. Pagé M, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 9. Zaïani C, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 10. Garot J, Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Massy, France. 11. Poulin F, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simpson Biplane method and 3D by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), radionuclide angiography (RNA), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are the most accepted techniques for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment. Wall motion score index (WMSI) by TTE is an accepted complement. However, the conversion from WMSI to LVEF is obtained through a regression equation which may limit its use. In this retrospective study, we aimed to validate a new method to derive LVEF from the wall motion score in 95 patients. METHODS: The new score consisted of attributing a segmental EF to each LV segment based on the wall motion score and averaging all 16 segmental EF into a global LVEF. This segmental EF score was calculated on TTE in 95 patients and RNA was used as the reference method. LVEF using the new segmental EF 15-40-65 score on TTE was compared to the reference methods using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The median LVEF was 45% (interquartile range 32-53%; range from 15 to 65%). Our new segmental EF 15-40-65 score derived on TTE correlated strongly with RNA-LVEF (r=0.97). Overall, the new score resulted in good agreement of LVEF compared to RNA (mean bias 0.61%). The standard deviations (SDs) of the distributions of inter-method difference for the comparison of the new score with RNA was 6.2%, indicating good precision. CONCLUSION: LVEF assessment using segmental EF derived from the wall motion score applied to each of the 16 LV segments has excellent correlation and agreement with a reference method.
BACKGROUND: Simpson Biplane method and 3D by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), radionuclide angiography (RNA), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are the most accepted techniques for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment. Wall motion score index (WMSI) by TTE is an accepted complement. However, the conversion from WMSI to LVEF is obtained through a regression equation which may limit its use. In this retrospective study, we aimed to validate a new method to derive LVEF from the wall motion score in 95 patients. METHODS: The new score consisted of attributing a segmental EF to each LV segment based on the wall motion score and averaging all 16 segmental EF into a global LVEF. This segmental EF score was calculated on TTE in 95 patients and RNA was used as the reference method. LVEF using the new segmental EF 15-40-65 score on TTE was compared to the reference methods using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The median LVEF was 45% (interquartile range 32-53%; range from 15 to 65%). Our new segmental EF 15-40-65 score derived on TTE correlated strongly with RNA-LVEF (r=0.97). Overall, the new score resulted in good agreement of LVEF compared to RNA (mean bias 0.61%). The standard deviations (SDs) of the distributions of inter-method difference for the comparison of the new score with RNA was 6.2%, indicating good precision. CONCLUSION: LVEF assessment using segmental EF derived from the wall motion score applied to each of the 16 LV segments has excellent correlation and agreement with a reference method.
Authors: Kim Munk; Niels H Andersen; Christian J Terkelsen; Bo M Bibby; Søren P Johnsen; Hans E Bøtker; Torsten T Nielsen; Steen H Poulsen Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: James R Corbett; Olakunle O Akinboboye; Stephen L Bacharach; Jeffrey S Borer; Elias H Botvinick; E Gordon DePuey; Edward P Ficaro; Christopher L Hansen; Milena J Henzlova; Serge Van Kriekinge Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Rae F Duncan; Ben K Dundon; Adam J Nelson; James Pemberton; Kerry Williams; Matthew I Worthley; Azfar Zaman; Honey Thomas; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Jennifer L Dorosz; Dennis C Lezotte; David A Weitzenkamp; Larry A Allen; Ernesto E Salcedo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 24.094