Dergiler / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2022 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2

Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance

Sayfa
127–132
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: Visual approach for LVEF assessment may be used for rapid assessment of left ventricular systolic function in clinical practice, particularly in patients with good image quality.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Visual estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is still used in routine clinical practice.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: In 54 subjects who underwent 1.5-T CMRI, echocardiographic images were recorded after the CMRI procedure on the same day.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: Visual approach for LVEF assessment may be used for rapid assessment of left ventricular systolic function in clinical practice, particularly in patients with good image quality.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: Visual estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is still used in routine clinical practice. However, most of the studies evaluating the agreement between the visually estimated LVEF (ve-LVEF) and quantitatively measured LVEF (qm-LVEF) either have not used appropriate statistical methods or gold standard imaging modality. In this study, we aimed to assess the agreement between the ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF using contemporary statistical methods and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI). Methods: In 54 subjects who underwent 1.5-T CMRI, echocardiographic images were recorded after the CMRI procedure on the same day. Two independent observers estimated ve-LVEFs on echocardiographic records in a random and blinded fashion, and qm-LVEF was obtained by CMRI. Agreement between the ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF values and intra/ interobserver ve-LVEF estimations were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and kappa statistics. Results: There was a high agreement between the ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF (ICC 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.88–0.96). Bland-Altman analysis also demonstrated a good agreement between ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF with ve-LVEF, on average, being 0.6% lower than that obtained by CMRI (mean −0.6, limits of agreement −10.5 and +9.3). A good agreement was also observed for LVEF categories ≤35%, 36%–54%, and ≥55% (unweighted kappa 0.71, linearly weighted kappa 0.76); and LVEF of <55% and ≥55% (kappa 0.80). Intra/inter observer agreement was good for ve-LVEFs (ICC value 0.96 and 0.91, respectively). Conclusion: Visual approach for LVEF assessment may be used for rapid assessment of left ventricular systolic function in clinical practice, particularly in patients with good image quality.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ESENBOĞA, K., KILIÇKAP, M., PEKER, E., KOZLUCA, V., KOCA, Ç., KAYA, C. T., ULUDAĞ, D. M. G., DİNÇER, İ. (2022). Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2, 127–132. https://ajindex.com/articles/407456

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (3)

  1. Writing Committee Members, Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77: e25-197
  2. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Colvin MM, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/ AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 776-803. [Crossref] 3. Ojo A, Tariq S, Harikrishnan P, Iwai S, Jacobson JT. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure. Interv Cardiol Clin 2017; 6: 417-26. [Crossref] 4. Pontone G, Guaricci AI, Andreini D, Solbiati A, Guglielmo M, Mushtaq S, et al. Prognostic Benefit of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Over Transthoracic Echocardiography for the Assessment of Ischemic and Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients Referred for the Evaluation of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 9: e004956. [Crossref] 5. Galderisi M, Cosyns B, Edvardsen T, Cardim N, Delgado V, Di Salvo G, et al.; 2016–2018 EACVI Scientific Documents Com mittee; 2016–2018 EACVI Scientific Documents Committee. Standardization of adult transthoracic echocardiography reporting in agreement with recent chamber quantification, diastolic function, and heart valve disease recommendations: an expert consensus document of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; 18: 1301-10. [Crossref] 6. Liu D, Peck I, Dangi S, Schwarz KQ, Linte CA. Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Assessment: Unraveling the Bias between Area- and Volume-based Estimates. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2019; 10955: 109550T. [Crossref] 7. Alpar R. Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik. In: Alpar R, editor. Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik SPSS de Çözümleme Adımları ile Birlikte. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2020. p.439-73
  3. Mueller X, Stauffer JC, Jaussi A, Goy JJ, Kappenberger L. Subjective visual echocardiographic estimate of left ventricular ejection fraction as an alternative to conventional echocardiographic methods: comparison with contrast angiography. Clin Cardiol 1991; 14: 898-902