Key result
HDI correlates strongly with CMR for LV volumes and EF, outperforming contrast echocardiography for volumes.
Why the study?
To validate high-definition blood flow imaging for measuring LV volumes and ejection fraction through simultaneous comparisons with contrast echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Does High-definition blood flow imaging (HDI) accurately measure LV volumes and EF compared to contrast echocardiography and CMR in patients with limited echocardiographic images?
Observational (n=18)
Does High-definition blood flow imaging (HDI) accurately measure LV volumes and EF compared to contrast echocardiography and CMR in patients with limited echocardiographic images?
High-definition blood flow imaging provides accurate measurements of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction comparable to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, offering a viable alternative for patients with limited echocardiographic windows.
HDI may offer a non-contrast alternative for LV volumes and EF in limited windows; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: We recently reported the efficacy of High-definition blood flow imaging (HDI) in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) function and demonstrated that the results are comparable to those obtained by contrast echocardiography (CE). The present study validates HDI in measurements of LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) by simultaneous comparisons with CE and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). METHODS: Eighteen patients (age range 25-79 years) with limited echocardiographic images had measurements of LV end-diastolic volume (EDV, mL), end-systolic volume (ESV, mL), and EF (%) by HDI, CE, and CMR. RESULTS: Using the three techniques, measurements of EDV, ESV, and EF correlated well with correlation coefficients (r) ranging from .91 to .98 in comparisons between HDI and CMR, and .89 to .97 in comparisons between CE and CMR. The limits of agreement for the inter-methods comparisons by Bland-Altman analysis (mean ± 1.96 SD) between HDI and CMR were 4.92 ± 16.87% for EF, 21.53 ± 32.18 mL for EDV, and 10.69 ± 36.12 mL for ESV, between CE and CMR, the agreement limits were 2.48 ± 18.52% (LVEF), 24.58 ± 47.41 mL (EDV), and 14.09 ± 43.55 mL (ESV). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of LV volumes and EF by HDI and CE correlated well with CMR. Using CMR as the gold standard, the agreements in measurements of LV volumes were superior for HDI compared to CE. In measurements of EF, CE showed less mean difference when compared to HDI. HDI measurements compared well with those obtained by CMR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Patients with limited echocardiographic images (n=18). High-definition blood flow imaging (HDI) vs. Contrast echocardiography (CE) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was evaluated on Left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction. High-definition blood flow imaging (HDI) measurements of LV volumes and EF correlated well with CMR (r=0.91-0.98), showing superior agreement for LV volumes compared to contrast echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: