Key result
Contrast echocardiography significantly reduced the rate of poor or uninterpretable echocardiogram images from 31% to 2% compared to fundamental echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does contrast echocardiography improve ventricular function assessment and alter clinical management compared to fundamental echocardiography in patients undergoing routine echocardiography?
Observational (n=260)
Yes
Does contrast echocardiography improve ventricular function assessment and alter clinical management compared to fundamental echocardiography in patients undergoing routine echocardiography?
Absolute Event Rate: 2% vs 31%
p-value: p=<0.05
Contrast echocardiography significantly improves image quality, left ventricular segment visualization, and impacts clinical decision-making compared to fundamental echocardiography in routine clinical practice.
CE may improve wall motion assessment and diagnosis in difficult cases; leaves open whether routine use changes management or outcomes.
Background: Fundamental echocardiography has some drawbacks in patients with difficult-to-image echocardiograms.The aim of this study is to evaluate impact of contrast echocardiography (CE) on ventricular function assessment and clinical diagnosis in routine clinical echocardiography.Methods: Two hundred sixty patients were prospectively enrolled over 3 years in 12 medical centers in Korea.General image quality, the number of distinguishable segments, ability to assess regional wall motion, left ventricular (LV) apex and right ventricle (RV) visualization, LV ejection fraction, changes in diagnostic or treatment plan were documented after echocardiography with and without ultrasound contrast agent.Results: Poor or uninterpretable general image was 31% before contrast use, and decreased to 2% (p < 0.05) after contrast use.The average number of visualized LV segments was 9.53 before contrast use, and increased to 14.46 (p < 0.001) after contrast use.The percentage of poor or not seen LV regional wall motion was decreased from 28.4% to 3.5% (p < 0.001).The percentage of poor or not seen LV apex and RV was decreased from 49.4% to 2.4% (p < 0.001), from 30.5% to 10.5% (p < 0.001), respectively.Changes in diagnostic procedure and treatment plan after CE were 30% and 29.6%, respectively.Conclusion: Compared to fundamental echocardiography, CE impacted LV function assessment and clinical decision making in Korean patients who undergo routine echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Suboptimal routine clinical echocardiography (n=260). Contrast echocardiography vs. Fundamental echocardiography (without contrast) was evaluated on Poor or uninterpretable general image quality (p=<0.05). Contrast echocardiography significantly reduced the rate of poor or uninterpretable echocardiogram images from 31% to 2% compared to fundamental echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: