Key result
Subjective echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular size and function showed slight to fair reliability (PABAK 0.25 and 0.43) and poor inter-rater agreement compared to quantitative MRI.
Why the study?
Does subjective echocardiographic assessment accurately estimate right ventricular size and systolic function compared to quantitative MRI in patients with right-sided congenital heart disease?
Population
22 patients with right-sided congenital heart disease, mean age 16.6 +/- 7.1 years
Comparison
Subjective assessment of right ventricular size… vs Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Design
Cross-sectional, Four echocardiographers blinded to the MRI results
Authors
Loading...
Caution against subjective RV echo assessment in congenital disease; leaves open validation of quantitative echocardiographic methods versus MRI.
Observational (n=22)
Blinded to MRI results
Does subjective echocardiographic assessment accurately estimate right ventricular size and systolic function compared to quantitative MRI in patients with right-sided congenital heart disease?
Effect estimate: PABAK 0.25 and 0.43
p-value: p=0.22 and 0.09
Subjective echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular size and function has significant limitations and poor inter-rater reliability compared to MRI in patients with right heart disease.
Puchalski et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Right-sided congenital heart disease (n=22). Echocardiographic "eyeball" method vs. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated on Reliability for accurately identifying a severely dilated RV and moderately to severely diminished RV systolic function (PABAK 0.25 and 0.43, p=0.22 and 0.09). Subjective echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular size and function showed slight to fair reliability (PABAK 0.25 and 0.43) and poor inter-rater agreement compared to quantitative MRI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: