Key result
Apical long-axis and four-chamber views match 3D LV volumes and EF better than two-chamber views.
Why the study?
Does combining the apical long-axis view with the four-chamber view improve the accuracy of biplane left ventricular volume and ejection fraction calculations compared to using the two-chamber view?
Cross-Sectional (n=27)
Does combining the apical long-axis view with the four-chamber view improve the accuracy of biplane left ventricular volume and ejection fraction calculations compared to using the two-chamber view?
The apical long-axis view combined with the four-chamber view provides more accurate biplane left ventricular volume and ejection fraction calculations than the traditional two-chamber combination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports preferring apical long-axis plus four-chamber for biplane LV assessment; leaves open prospective outcome validation.
Nosir et al. (1997) conducted a cross-sectional in Left ventricular volume and function assessment (n=27). Apical four- and long-axis views (BE-B) vs. Apical four- and two-chamber views (BE-A) was evaluated on End-diastolic and end-systolic left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. Combining the apical long-axis and four-chamber views yielded closer limits of agreement with 3D echocardiography for left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction than using the two-chamber view.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: