Key result
Echocardiography-based EF measurement was associated with a higher risk of death compared to radionuclide angiography in patients with LV dysfunction (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.30; p=0.03).
Why the study?
Does echocardiography-based LVEF assessment predict different mortality compared to radionuclide angiography in patients with left ventricular dysfunction?
Cohort (n=5,706)
Yes
Does echocardiography-based LVEF assessment predict different mortality compared to radionuclide angiography in patients with left ventricular dysfunction?
Relative Risk: 1.15 (95% CI 1.01–1.3)
p-value: p=0.03
For a given LVEF ≤0.35, an echocardiography-based value is associated with a higher risk of death compared to a radionuclide angiography-based measurement, suggesting the two modalities predict mortality differently.
Supports caution comparing echocardiography- and radionuclide-derived LVEF for prognosis in LV dysfunction; observational data leaves open modality-specific thresholds in future cohorts.
Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, as indicated by a reduced LV ejection fraction (EF) is a potent predictor of cardiovascular mortality. Radionuclide angiography accurately and reproducibly assesses LVEF; however, echocardiography is used more frequently in clinical practice. Whether these methods predict similar mortality has not been fully investigated. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with baseline radionuclide angiographic (RNA; n = 4,330) and echocardiographic (echo; n = 1,376) based EFs < or =0.35 who were enrolled in the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) to address this hypothesis. After adjusting for important prognostic variables, the risk of death (RR 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.30; p = 0.03) and of cardiovascular death (RR 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.32; p = 0.04) was higher for patients with ECG-based EFs. To compare the 2 techniques across a range of EF values, we divided the cohort into tertiles of EF. The adjusted risk estimates for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were similar within each tertile. Of note, the mortality difference in patients with echo- versus RNA-based EFs was most prominent in women. Further, patients with echo-based EFs had significantly higher mortality at sites where this technique was less frequently used to assess the EF. Thus, for a given EF < or =0.35, an echo-based value was associated with a higher risk of death compared with the RNA-based method of measurement. These data suggest that EF values determined by echocardiography and radionuclide angiography predict different mortality and this may, in part, be related to technical proficiency as well as patient characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rashid et al. (1999) conducted a cohort in Left ventricular dysfunction (n=5,706). Echocardiography-based ejection fraction measurement vs. Radionuclide angiography-based ejection fraction measurement was evaluated on Risk of death (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30, p=0.03). Echocardiography-based EF measurement was associated with a higher risk of death compared to radionuclide angiography in patients with LV dysfunction (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.30; p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: