Key result
A novel acoustic-based device (VRI) significantly correlated with echocardiography for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction (R2=0.59, P<0.001) and accurately predicted reduced LVEF.
Why the study?
Does vibration response imaging accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction compared to echocardiography in patients and healthy volunteers?
Cross-Sectional (n=141)
Does vibration response imaging accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction compared to echocardiography in patients and healthy volunteers?
Effect estimate: R2 = 0.59
p-value: p=< 0.001
A novel acoustic-based device (VRI) can estimate LVEF with reasonable accuracy, potentially assisting in the triage of patients prior to echocardiography.
May support point-of-care LVEF screening; leaves open prospective validation versus echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: We examined the feasibility of estimating left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by a novel acoustic-based device [vibration response imaging (VRI); Deep Breeze]. METHODS: One hundred and forty-one subjects (117 patients and 24 healthy volunteers; age 55 ± 15 years, 82% men) were examined by both VRI and echocardiography. LVEF was determined by echocardiography (echo-LVEF) using the biplane Simpson's method. Low-frequency acoustic signals (10-70 Hz) were recorded by VRI from the left posterior thorax by a matrix of 36 microphones during 8 s of breath holding, and an electrocardiogram was recorded simultaneously. The acoustic signals were processed digitally, and an algorithm designed to estimate LVEF was developed (VRI-LVEF), based on a combination of multiple acoustic (systolic and diastolic acoustic signals, beat-to-beat variability of acoustic signals and propagation of acoustic signals throughout the matrix), electrocardiographic and clinical parameters. RESULTS: Mean echo-LVEF was 51 ± 15% (range, 11-76%). Echo-LVEF was reduced (< 50%) in 55 subjects (39%) and severely reduced (< 35%) in 28 subjects (20%). VRI-LVEF calculated by a multivariate algorithm correlated significantly with echo-LVEF (R(2) = 0·59; P < 0·001). VRI-LVEF accurately predicted the presence of reduced (< 50%) or severely reduced (< 35%) echo-LVEF, with sensitivities of 84% and 82%, specificities of 86% and 91%, positive predictive values of 79% and 70% and negative predictive values of 89% and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LVEF can be estimated using a novel acoustic-based device. This device may assist in triage of patients according to LVEF prior to definitive assessment of LVEF by echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Radzievsky et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Left ventricular dysfunction (n=141). Vibration response imaging (VRI) vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Correlation between VRI-LVEF and echo-LVEF (R2 = 0.59, p=< 0.001). A novel acoustic-based device (VRI) significantly correlated with echocardiography for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction (R2=0.59, P<0.001) and accurately predicted reduced LVEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: