Key result
Echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method demonstrated excellent concordance with cardiac magnetic resonance (CCC 0.831), confirming its validity as a tool for estimating systolic function.
Why the study?
Regional evidence evaluating the concordance among echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method, GLS, and CMR remains limited.
Do echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method and global longitudinal strain show concordance with cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with confirmed or suspected heart disease?
Population
35 patients with confirmed or suspected heart disease in Cali, Colombia
Comparison
Echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method vs GLS vs CMR
Design
Cross-sectional, analytical, descriptive study
Authors
Loading...
Echo LVEF/GLS assessment warrants caution versus CMR; leaves open need for prospective validation studies.
Cross-Sectional (n=35)
Single-blind
No
Do echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method and global longitudinal strain show concordance with cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with confirmed or suspected heart disease?
Effect estimate: CCC 0.831 (95% CI 0.609-0.932)
Echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method and global longitudinal strain demonstrate good concordance with cardiac magnetic resonance, supporting their validity as tools for estimating systolic function.
Escandón et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Confirmed or suspected heart disease (n=35). Echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was evaluated on Concordance between Simpson's LVEF and CMR-derived LVEF (CCC 0.831, 95% CI 0.609-0.932). Echocardiographic LVEF by Simpson's method demonstrated excellent concordance with cardiac magnetic resonance (CCC 0.831), confirming its validity as a tool for estimating systolic function.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: