Key result
2D echocardiography overestimates LVH presence by ~44% compared to 3D echocardiography in HFpEF.
Why the study?
Two-dimensional echocardiography LV mass calculations rely on geometric assumptions of symmetry, whereas 3D echocardiography could overcome these limitations.
Does 2D echocardiography overestimate left ventricular hypertrophy compared to 3D echocardiography in patients with HFpEF?
Observational (n=154)
No
Does 2D echocardiography overestimate left ventricular hypertrophy compared to 3D echocardiography in patients with HFpEF?
Absolute Event Rate: 74% vs 30%
p-value: p=0.001
2D echocardiography significantly overestimates left ventricular mass and concentric hypertrophy in HFpEF patients compared to 3D echocardiography, suggesting many HFpEF patients lack true structural hypertrophy.
Caution advised with 2D echo LVH assessment in HFpEF; hypothesis-generating for 3D validation in prospective studies.
Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction continues to pose multiple challenges in terms of accurate diagnosis, treatment, and associated morbidity. Accurate left ventricular (LV) mass calculation yields essential prognostic information relating to structural heart disease. Two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography-based calculations are solely limited to LV geometric assumptions of symmetry, whereas three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography could overcome these limitations. This study aims to compare the performance of 2D and 3D LV mass calculations.Methods: A prospective review of echocardiography findings at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, was conducted and assessed. Normal ejection fraction (EF) was defined as >=52% in males and >=54% in females. The following calculations were performed: relative wall thickness (RWT) = 2x posterior wall thickness/LV internal diastolic dimension (LVIDd) and 2D LV mass = 0.8{1.04([LVIDd + IVSd +PWd]3 - LVIDd3)} + 0.6. Concentric hypertrophy was RWT > 0.42 and LV mass >95 kg/m2 in females or > 115 kg/m2 in males. The same cut-offs were used for 2D and 3D echocardiography.Results: Echocardiographic findings for a total number of 154 patients in the study were investigated. There was a weak positive correlation between 2D and 3D LV mass indices (R= 0.534, r2= 0.286, p= 0.001). Seventy patients had 3D EF >=45% with clinical heart failure (HFpEF). Among HFpEF patients, LV hypertrophy (LVH) was present in 74% of patients by 2D echocardiography and 30% by 3D echocardiography (McNemar test p= 0.001). Using 3D echocardiography as the reference, 68% of normal patients were misdiagnosed with LV hypertrophy by 2D echocardiography. Two-thirds of the patients with concentric remodeling by 3D echocardiography were misclassified as having concentric hypertrophy by 2D echocardiography (p=0.001).Conclusion: Adapting necropsy-proven LV mass index cutoffs, 2D over-diagnosed LV hypertrophy through overestimation of the mass, compared to 3D echocardiography. In turn, the majority of HFpEF patients showed no structural hypertrophy of the LV on 3D imaging. This suggests that the majority of patients with HFpEF may qualify for pharmacological prevention to prevent further progression to LV remodeling or LVH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mathbout et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=154). 2D echocardiography vs. 3D echocardiography was evaluated on Presence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in HFpEF patients (p=0.001). 2D echocardiography significantly overestimated the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy compared to 3D echocardiography in patients with HFpEF (74% vs 30%, p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: