PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 20, 2007European Journal of Echocardiography136 citations

Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume

View Full Paper
PJPanupong JiamsripongUniversity of Hawaiʻi at MānoaTHT HondaTeikyo University HospitalCRChristina S. ReussMayo Clinic

Structured PICO

Does the method of echocardiographic measurement (AL, SIMP, PE) affect the calculated left atrial volume in patients undergoing resting transthoracic echocardiography?

P
Population
97 consecutive patients presenting to an outpatient echocardiography laboratory for a resting transthoracic study
I
Intervention
Biplane area length (AL) method for left atrial volume measurement
C
Comparator
Biplane modified Simpson (SIMP) and prolate ellipse (PE) methods
O
Outcome
Left atrial volume (mL/m2)surrogate

Different echocardiographic methods for measuring left atrial volume yield significantly different results, highlighting the need for standardization in clinical practice.

Abstract

AIM: To compare and contrast 3 different echocardiographic methods used to measure left atrial (LA) volume: biplane area length (AL), biplane modified Simpson (SIMP), and prolate ellipse (PE) methods. METHODS AND RESULTS: A review of consecutive patients who presented to our outpatient echocardiography laboratory for a resting transthoracic study between April 2006 and May 2006 was performed. Echocardiograms were reexamined and LA volume measured using the AL, SIMP, and PE methods. Of 102 consecutive patients evaluated, 97 had a measure of LA volume using all 3 methods. A significant difference in the measurement of mean +/- SD LA volume was noted among the 3 different methods: 37 +/- 16 mL/m(2) for AL, 34 +/- 14 mL/m(2) for SIMP, and 27 +/- 12 mL/m(2) for PE. The PE method yielded routinely smaller values compared with either the AL or SIMP method (P < 0.001). Differences increased with increased LA volume. The SIMP method derived consistently smaller (<5 mL/m(2)) values than those of the AL method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist among these 3 commonly used methods for measuring LA volume. Standardization of the measurement of LA volume is recommended.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jiamsripong et al. (2007) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1958c95d70402e70d9496chttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.euje.2007.05.004
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Left atrial volume quantification using cardiac MRI in atrial fibrillation: comparison of the Simpson’s method with biplane area-length, ellipse, and three-dimensional methods2012 · 48 citations
  2. 2Comparison of left atrial size by freehand scanning three-dimensional echocardiography and two-dimensional echocardiography2003 · 32 citations
  3. 3Left atrial volume estimation by two‐dimensional echocardiography1981 · 135 citations
  4. 4Comparison of Automatic Boundary Detection and Manual Tracing Technique in Echocardiographic Determination of Left Atrial Volume1998 · 7 citations
  5. 5Determinants of discrepancies between two-dimensional echocardiographic methods for assessment of maximal left atrial volume2016 · 7 citations