Key result
2D echocardiography demonstrated limited screening performance compared to CMR, with a sensitivity of 25% and a false-negative rate of 75% for detecting an ejection fraction <50%.
Why the study?
Does 2D echocardiography accurately detect left ventricular ejection fraction <50% compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in adult survivors of childhood cancer?
Cross-Sectional (n=114)
Does 2D echocardiography accurately detect left ventricular ejection fraction <50% compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in adult survivors of childhood cancer?
2D echocardiography has poor sensitivity for detecting left ventricular ejection fraction <50% compared to CMR in adult survivors of childhood cancer, suggesting a need for comprehensive cardiac assessment including CMR or higher echocardiography cutoffs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports caution against sole reliance on 2D echocardiography for LVEF screening; leaves open optimal protocols in adult childhood cancer survivors.
PURPOSE: To compare two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography, the current method of screening for treatment-related cardiomyopathy recommended by the Children's Oncology Group Guidelines, to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, the reference standard for left ventricular (LV) function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional, contemporaneous evaluation of LV structure and function by 2D and three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography and CMR imaging in 114 adult survivors of childhood cancer currently median age 39 years (range, 22 to 53 years) exposed to anthracycline chemotherapy and/or chest-directed radiation therapy. RESULTS: In this survivor population, 14% (n = 16) had an ejection fraction (EF) less than 50% by CMR. Survivors previously undiagnosed with cardiotoxicity (n = 108) had a high prevalence of EF (32%) and cardiac mass (48%) that were more than two standard deviations below the mean of normative CMR data. 2D echocardiography overestimated the mean EF of this population by 5%. Compared with CMR, 2D echocardiography (biplane method) had a sensitivity of 25% and a false-negative rate of 75% for detection of EF less than 50%, although 3D echocardiography had 53% and 47%, respectively. Twelve survivors (11%) had an EF less than 50% by CMR but were misclassified as ≥ 50% (range, 50% to 68%) by 2D echocardiography (biplane method). Detection of cardiomyopathy was improved (sensitivity, 75%) by using a higher 2D echocardiography cutoff (EF < 60%) to detect an EF less than 50% by the reference standard CMR. CONCLUSION: CMR identified a high prevalence of cardiomyopathy among adult survivors previously undiagnosed with cardiac disease. 2D echocardiography demonstrated limited screening performance. In this high-risk population, survivors with an EF 50% to 59% by 2D echocardiography should be considered for comprehensive cardiac assessment, which may include CMR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Armstrong et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Adult survivors of childhood cancer (n=114). 2D echocardiography vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was evaluated on Sensitivity for detection of ejection fraction less than 50%. 2D echocardiography demonstrated limited screening performance compared to CMR, with a sensitivity of 25% and a false-negative rate of 75% for detecting an ejection fraction <50%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: