Why the study?
Initial LV reshaping, hypokinesia, and microvascular dysfunction early after STEMI may affect the analysis of LV function.
Are LVEF and SV measurements consistent across different imaging modalities (CVG, 2DE, CMR) early after STEMI?
Are LVEF and SV measurements consistent across different imaging modalities (CVG, 2DE, CMR) early after STEMI?
2D analysis of LVEF yields robust and interchangeable results across CVG, 2DE, and 2D CMR early after STEMI, but stroke volume measurements differ substantially between modalities.
2D LVEF measurements are consistent across modalities early post-STEMI; supports interchangeable use in acute settings but leaves open SV standardization.
BACKGROUND: Early after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), initial LV reshaping and hypokinesia may affect analysis of LV function. Concomitant microvascular dysfunction may affect LV function as well. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and stroke volume (SV) by different imaging modalities to assess LV function early after STEMI. METHODS: LVEF and SV were assessed using serial imaging within 24 h and 5 days after STEMI using cineventriculography (CVG), 2-dimensional echocardiography (2DE), 2D/3D cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) (2D/3D) in 82 patients. RESULTS: 2D analyses of LVEF using CVG, 2DE and 2D CMR yielded uniform results within 24 h and 5 days of STEMI. SV assessment between CVG and 2DE was comparable, whereas values for SV were higher using 2D CMR (p < 0.01 all). This was due to higher LVEDV measurements. LVEF by 2D versus 3D CMR was comparable, 3D CMR yielded higher volumetric values. This was not influenced by infarct location or infarct size. CONCLUSIONS: 2D analysis of LVEF yielded robust results across all imaging techniques implying that CVG, 2DE, and 2D CMR can be used interchangeably early after STEMI. SV measurements differed substantially between imaging techniques due to higher intermodality-differences of absolute volumetric measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Georgieva et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: