Key result
Echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular internal diameter correctly identified only 30% (unindexed) and 13% (indexed) of patients with severely dilated LV by volumetric measurement.
Why the study?
Does measurement of LV internal diameter agree with LV end-diastolic volume for classifying LV size in patients undergoing contrast echocardiography?
Observational (n=2,008)
No
Does measurement of LV internal diameter agree with LV end-diastolic volume for classifying LV size in patients undergoing contrast echocardiography?
Echocardiographic measurement of LV diameter shows poor agreement with LV volume for classifying LV dilation, suggesting diameter should have a limited role in assessing LV size.
May warrant caution relying on LV diameter for dilation classification in contrast echo; leaves open outcome validation of volumetric criteria.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) size is an important clinical variable, commonly assessed at echocardiography by measurement of the internal diameter in diastole (IDD). However, this has recognised limitations and volumetric measurement from apical views is considered superior, particularly with the use of echocardiographic contrast. We sought to determine the agreement in classification of LV size by different measures in a large population of patients undergoing echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were analysed retrospectively from consecutive patients (n=2008, 61% male, median 62 years) who received echocardiographic contrast for LV opacification over 3 years in a single institution. Repeat studies were not included. LVIDD was measured, and LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) calculated using Simpson's biplane method. Both measures were indexed (i) to body surface area and categorised according to the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines as normal, mild, moderate or severely dilated. Of 320 patients with a severely dilated LVEDVi, only 95 (30%) were similarly classified by LVIDD, with 86 patients (27%) measuring in the normal range. LVIDDi agreement was poorer, with only 43 patients (13%) classified as being severely dilated, and 173 (54%) measuring in the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: Currently recommended echocardiographic measures of LV size show limited agreement when classified according to currently recommended cut-offs. LV diameter should have a limited role in the assessment of LV size, particularly where a finding of LV dilation has important diagnostic or therapeutic implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gibson et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing echocardiography with contrast for LV opacification (n=2,008). Left ventricular internal diameter in diastole (LVIDD) vs. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was evaluated on Agreement in classification of LV size according to ASE guidelines. Echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular internal diameter correctly identified only 30% (unindexed) and 13% (indexed) of patients with severely dilated LV by volumetric measurement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on EchocardiographyMore from Open Heart