Why the study?
Does automated acoustic quantification reliably measure left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared to cineangiography in children with congenital and acquired heart disease?
Does automated acoustic quantification reliably measure left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared to cineangiography in children with congenital and acquired heart disease?
Automated acoustic quantification provides reliable measurements of left ventricular size and function in children, comparable to cineangiography.
Supports AQ for LV volumes in children; leaves open EF validation and clinical adoption.
Automated acoustic quantification (AQ) technique for left ventricular (LV) volume and function has been validated in vitro and in adults. Its reliability and applicability in children has not been validated. Therefore, 30 children with different forms of congenital and acquired heart disease underwent cineangiography followed by AQ for LV volumes and ejection fraction measurements. Their median age was 3.6 years and median weight was 14 kg. In all patients, AQ was obtained without difficulty; the quality was adequate in all but the largest patient. The mean LV end‐diastolic volume by cineangiography was 66 mL compared with 47 mL by AQ; there was good correlation between the two techniques with an r = 0.92, P < 0.001. The mean LV end‐systolic volume was 24 mL by cineangiography compared to 19 mL by AQ, with good correlation, r = 0.94, P < 0.001. The median ejection fraction by cineangiography was 63% compared to 63.5% by AQ. However, the correlation was not strong, r = 0.52, most likely due to lack of wide range of ejection fractions. In conclusion, AQ yielded quantitative measurements of size and function in normal and abnormal shaped ventricles as reliable as cineangiography and could be used to follow LV quantitatively in patients in whom accurate assessment is essential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hijazi et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: