Noncontrast 3-dimensional echocardiography had the lowest temporal variability for sequential LVEF measurement (0.06 vs >0.10 for 2D methods) over 1 year of follow-up.
Observational (n=56)
Blinded to clinical data
Does noncontrast 3-dimensional echocardiography improve the reproducibility of sequential left ventricular ejection fraction and volume measurements compared to 2D methods in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy?
56 female patients (mean age 54 ± 13 years) undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, with stable left ventricular function defined by normal global longitudinal strain (≤-16.0%) at up to 5 time points.
Noncontrast 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE)
2D-biplane Simpson's method, 2D-triplane, and contrast-enhanced 2D/3D echocardiography
Temporal variability of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes over 1 yearsurrogate
Noncontrast 3D echocardiography is the most reproducible technique for sequential assessment of LVEF and volumes in patients undergoing chemotherapy, outperforming 2D methods.
Absolute Event Rate: 0.06% vs 0.1%
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the best echocardiographic method for sequential quantification of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and volumes in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding cancer therapy are based on temporal changes of EF. However the method for EF measurement with the lowest temporal variability is unknown. METHODS: We selected patients in whom stable function in the face of chemotherapy for breast cancer was defined by stability of global longitudinal strain (GLS) at up to 5 time points (baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). In this way, changes in EF were considered to reflect temporal variability of measurements rather than cardiotoxicity. A comprehensive echocardiogram consisting of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) acquisitions with and without contrast administration was performed at each time point. Stable LV function was defined as normal GLS (≤-16.0%) at each examination. The EF and volumes were measured with 2D-biplane Simpson's method, 2D-triplane, and 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) by 2 investigators blinded to any clinical data. Inter-, intra-, and test-retest variability were assessed in a subgroup. Variability was assessed by analysis of variance and compared with Levene's or t test. RESULTS: Among 56 patients (all female, 54 ± 13 years of age), noncontrast 3D EF, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume had significantly lower temporal variability than all other methods. Contrast only decreased the temporal variability of LV end-diastolic volume measurements by the 2D biplane method. Our data suggest that a temporal variability in EF of 0.06 might occur with noncontrast 3DE due to physiological differences and measurement variability, whereas this might be >0.10 with 2D methods. Overall, 3DE also had the best intra- and inter-observer as well as test-retest variability. CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast 3DE was the most reproducible technique for LVEF and LV volume measurements over 1 year of follow-up.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan
Cardio-Oncology
Andrew Grant
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
Tomoko Negishi
Cardio-Oncology
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Cleveland Clinic
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Thavendiranathan et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy (n=56). Noncontrast 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) vs. 2D-biplane Simpson's method, 2D-triplane, and contrast-enhanced methods was evaluated on Temporal variability of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes. Noncontrast 3-dimensional echocardiography had the lowest temporal variability for sequential LVEF measurement (0.06 vs >0.10 for 2D methods) over 1 year of follow-up.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69ecdb65eb2c6328dba62cd7 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.035
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: