Key result
Routine 3D echocardiography was technically feasible in 83% of patients and changed clinical categorization in 6-11% of patients compared to 2D echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does 3D echocardiography alter clinical decision-making compared to 2D echocardiography in patients referred for routine echocardiography?
Population
220 patients referred to three hospital-based echocardiography laboratories
Comparison
3D echocardiography for assessment of left… vs 2D echocardiography (2DE)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May refine categorization in select patients; leaves open whether routine 3D use improves prognostic accuracy or outcomes.
Observational (n=220)
Yes
Does 3D echocardiography alter clinical decision-making compared to 2D echocardiography in patients referred for routine echocardiography?
Routine 3D echocardiography is feasible in clinical practice and can alter clinical decision-making by reclassifying patients across critical LVEF and LVESV thresholds.
Hare et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Patients referred for echocardiography (n=220). 3D echocardiography vs. 2D echocardiography was evaluated on Technical feasibility and change in clinical categorization. Routine 3D echocardiography was technically feasible in 83% of patients and changed clinical categorization in 6-11% of patients compared to 2D echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: