Key result
Second harmonic echocardiography reduced unscored segments to 9.0% compared to 19.5% with fundamental mode, improving correlation and agreement with MIBI gated SPECT for EF and WMSI.
Why the study?
Does second harmonic echocardiography improve the determination of global and regional left ventricular function compared to fundamental mode imaging?
Observational (n=62)
Blinded to reference standard
Does second harmonic echocardiography improve the determination of global and regional left ventricular function compared to fundamental mode imaging?
Second harmonic echocardiography significantly improves endocardial border detection and the accuracy of left ventricular function assessment compared to fundamental mode imaging.
May improve LV function assessment in echo labs; supports further validation but leaves open outcome impact.
AIMS: To evaluate the impact of second harmonic (SH) compared to fundamental mode (FM) imaging on the echocardiographic determination of ejection fraction (EF) and wall motion score index (WMSI), using MIBI gated SPECT as an independent reference. METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive patients underwent an echocardiography study and a MIBI gated SPECT over 24 hours. EF was estimated visually (estimated-E) and was calculated with the Simpson biplane method (Tracing-T), for both FM and SH. WMSI was determined by two independent echo-readers blinded to the nuclear imaging results. The same segmentation and scoring system was used for WMSI determined by MIBI gated SPECT. RESULTS: The percentages of unscored segments because of suboptimal endocardial border detection were 19.5% (FM) and 9.0% (SH). The correlation coefficients (r) between SPECT-EF and echo-EF were: FM (E)=0.705, FM (T)=0.546, SH (E)=0.771, SH (T)=0.743. Agreement between SPECT-EF and echo-EF was acceptable for both imaging modalities (mean of the difference +/- 2 S.D.): -2.8 +/- 18.5 (FM) and -3.5 +/- 16.4 (SH). Correlation coefficients (r) between WMSI calculated by SPECT and by echo were 0.715 (FM) and 0.789 (SH). Agreement between SPECT-WMSI and echo-WMSI was good for all imaging modes but better with SH compared to FM: 0.12 +/- 0.91 (FM), 0.10 +/- 0.77 (SH). The interobserver correlation coefficients (r) for the WMSI were 0.939 (FM) and 0.996 (SH). The agreement between the two observers was better for SH compared to FM. The systematic differences (mean differences) were 0.21 (FM) and -0.01 (SH), and the random differences between both observers (2 S.D.) decreased from 1.55 (FM) to 0.29 (SH). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SH echocardiography decreases the number of unscored segments. This results in an important gain in correlation and agreement for EF determination between echo and SPECT, and in a considerable decline of the interobserver variability for the echo-determined WMSI. WMSI determined by MIBI gated SPECT correlated closely with the SH WMSI, and agreement between both methods was excellent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guy Van Camp (2000) reported an observational. Second harmonic (SH) imaging vs. Fundamental mode (FM) imaging was evaluated on Percentage of unscored segments because of suboptimal endocardial border detection. Second harmonic echocardiography reduced unscored segments to 9.0% compared to 19.5% with fundamental mode, improving correlation and agreement with MIBI gated SPECT for EF and WMSI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: