Why the study?
Contrast echocardiography improves LV endocardial border visualization, but whether novel HD-Flow imaging could accurately assess LV function and improve border definition without contrast remained unproven.
Does high-definition blood flow imaging (HD-Flow) accurately evaluate left ventricular function compared to contrast echocardiography in patients with technically limited transthoracic echocardiograms?
Does high-definition blood flow imaging (HD-Flow) accurately evaluate left ventricular function compared to contrast echocardiography in patients with technically limited transthoracic echocardiograms?
HD-Flow imaging is a feasible, faster alternative to contrast echocardiography for assessing LV function in patients with technically limited echocardiograms.
May expedite EF assessment without contrast in limited windows; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the high-definition blood flow imaging (HD-Flow) in evaluation of left ventricular (LV) function by comparison with contrast echocardiography (Contrast). BACKGROUND: Contrast improves endocardial border visualization and assists in precise assessment of LV function. HD-Flow, a novel ultrasound technique that enhances blood flow discrimination in LV, could possibly be used for improving endocardial border definition without contrast. METHODS: Eighty patients with technically limited transthoracic echocardiograms had HD-Flow, and contrast performed sequentially. LV endocardial visualization, image acquisition time, wall motion, volumes, ejection fraction (EF), stroke volume (SV), and stroke volume index (SVI) were compared. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were examined in a randomly selected subgroup. The acquisition time for HD-Flow was significantly less when compared to contrast (2.13 ± 1.18 minutes vs 10.96 ± 3.51 minutes, P < 0.001). LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), EF, SV, and SVI measured by the two methods correlated well (EDVr = 0.97, ESVr = 0.96, EFr = 0.90, SVr = 0.77, SVIr = 0.74, all P < 0.001). In comparison, HD-Flow was neither significantly different in detecting LV wall motion abnormality nor in EF, SV, and SVI measurements, but slightly underestimated LV volumes. CONCLUSIONS: HD-Flow imaging is feasible and user-friendly in enhancing LV endocardial definition. This technique is useful in both qualitative and quantitative assessment of LV function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: