Key result
Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy systematically overestimated LVEF compared to echocardiography, with a larger mean difference in women than in men.
Why the study?
To test the hypothesis that sex differences seen in risk-threshold LVEF with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy also affect agreement between echocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.
Does the agreement between LVEF measured by myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and echocardiography differ by sex?
Observational (n=743)
Does the agreement between LVEF measured by myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and echocardiography differ by sex?
There is a significant systematic bias and wide limits of agreement between LVEF measured by myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and echocardiography, which is markedly more pronounced in women.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LVEF values from scintigraphy and echocardiography should not be interchanged, especially in women; leaves open need for sex-specific validation before clinical adoption.
Background Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is generally measured by echocardiography but is increasingly available with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. With myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, the threshold of LVEF below which there is a risk for myocardial infarct or sudden cardiac death is higher for women (51%) than for men (43%). We tested the hypothesis that such a sex difference may also occur with echocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Methods Four hundred and four men, mean age = 67.7 ± SD = 12.3 yr; 339 women, 67.7 ± 11.7 yr had separate myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and echocardiography examinations within six months. A subset of 327 of these patients (181 men, 68.8 ± 12.1 yr; 146 women, 66.4 ± 12.1 yr) had examinations within one month and were additionally analysed as this sub-group. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and echocardiography were used to measure LVEF at rest and their agreement (neither considered as a reference method) was assessed by Bland–Altman plots: LVEF difference (myocardial perfusion scintigraphy minus echocardiography ) against average LVEF ([Formula: see text]). Results Of patients who had myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and echocardiography performed within six months, mean LVEF difference = +1.1% (95% limits of agreement: −19.3 to +21.6) in men but +10.9% (−10.7 to +32.5) in women. LVEF difference diverged from zero marginally in men (mean difference = +1.1, 95%CI = +0.1 to +2.1, p = 0.028) but more in women (+10.9, +9.8 to +12.1, p < 0.001). The LVEF difference correlated with average LVEF itself in both men ( r = 0.305, p < 0.001) and women ( r = 0.361, p < 0.001), and with age in women ( r = 0.117, p = 0.031). Similar results were observed for the subset. Conclusions Caution should be taken when interpreting LVEF measured by different techniques due to their wide limits of agreement and systematic bias, more markedly in women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaker et al. (2020) reported an observational. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on LVEF difference (myocardial perfusion scintigraphy minus echocardiography) (MD +10.9% in women, +1.1% in men, 95% CI +9.8 to +12.1 in women, +0.1 to +2.1 in men, p=<0.001 in women, 0.028 in men). Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy systematically overestimated LVEF compared to echocardiography, with a larger mean difference in women than in men.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: