Key result
CMR remains the gold standard for LVEF, while 2D echocardiography is the primary first-line tool.
Why the study?
Many imaging modalities are available for non-invasive LVEF assessment, but guidance on their relative advantages, disadvantages, and hierarchical clinical application is needed.
This review proposes a hierarchical application of non-invasive imaging modalities for LVEF assessment, recommending TTE as first-line and CMR or 3D TTE when precise volumetric evaluation is required.
Supports TTE as practical first-line LVEF test; leaves open need for prospective trials comparing 3D TTE and CMR integration.
The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) is the preferred parameter applied for the non-invasive evaluation of LV systolic function in clinical practice. It has a well-recognized and extensive role in the clinical management of numerous cardiac conditions. Many imaging modalities are currently available for the non-invasive assessment of LVEF. The aim of this review is to describe their relative advantages and disadvantages, proposing a hierarchical application of the different imaging tests available for LVEF evaluation based on the level of accuracy/reproducibility clinically required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scatteia et al. (2021) conducted a review in Left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Non-invasive imaging modalities was evaluated. CMR is the gold standard for evaluating left ventricular ejection fraction, while 2D echocardiography remains the first-line test due to its wide availability and portability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: