Key result
Calculation of 3D-LVEF proves feasible in only 40% of cardio-oncology patients, trailing 2D modalities.
Why the study?
Is 3D-LVEF and 2D-GLS measurement feasible in routine clinical practice in a dedicated cardio-oncology clinic?
Observational (n=100)
No
Is 3D-LVEF and 2D-GLS measurement feasible in routine clinical practice in a dedicated cardio-oncology clinic?
While 2D-GLS and 2D-LVEF have high feasibility in a real-world cardio-oncology clinic, the lower feasibility of 3D-LVEF (40%) limits its routine clinical application.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports 2D-GLS and 2D-LVEF preference in cardio-oncology; leaves open 3D-LVEF optimization for routine use.
BACKGROUND: Following the publication of international cardio-oncology (CO) imaging guidelines, standard echocardiographic monitoring parameters of left ventricular systolic function have been endorsed. Recommendations highlight that either two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), alongside global longitudinal strain (GLS) should be routinely performed for surveillance of patients at risk of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). We studied the feasibility of 3D-LVEF, 2D-GLS and 2D-LVEF in a dedicated CO service. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective analysis of consecutive all-comer patients (n = 105) referred to an NHS CO clinic. Using a dedicated Philips EPIQ CVx v7.0, with X5-1 3D-transducer and 3DQA software, we sought to acquire and analyse 2D- and 3D-LVEF and 2D-GLS, adhering to the British Society of Echocardiography (BSE) and British Cardio-Oncology Society (BCOS) transthoracic echocardiography protocol. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were enrolled in the study; 5 were excluded due to carcinoid heart disease (n = 5). Calculation of 3D-LVEF was achieved in 40% (n = 40), 2D-GLS in 73% (n = 73), and 2D-LVEF in 81% (n = 81). LV quantification was not possible in 19% (n = 19) due to poor myocardial border definition. Strong correlation existed between 2D-LVEF and 3D-LVEF (r = 0.94, p < 0.0001). Bland-Altman plot demonstrated no statistical differences in that the mean deviation between 2D-LVEF and 3D-LVEF were consistent throughout a range of LVEF values. The most persistent obstacle to 3D-LVEF acquisition was insufficient myocardial border tracking (n = 30, 50%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the high feasibility of 2D-GLS and 2D-LVEF, even in those with challenging echocardiographic windows. The lower feasibility of 3D-LVEF limits its real-world clinical application, even though only a small difference in agreement with 2D-LVEF calculation was found when successfully performed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Driscoll et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Risk of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (n=100). 3D-LVEF, 2D-GLS, and 2D-LVEF echocardiography was evaluated on Feasibility of 3D-LVEF, 2D-GLS, and 2D-LVEF calculation (r = 0.94, p=<0.0001). Calculation of 3D-LVEF was feasible in only 40% of cardio-oncology patients, compared to 73% for 2D-GLS and 81% for 2D-LVEF, though 2D and 3D LVEF correlated strongly.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: