Key result
Volumetric versus biplane imaging impacts LVEF categorization more than modality in up to ~44% of patients.
Why the study?
The concordance between biplane and volumetric echocardiography and MRI methods and their impact on LV volume and LVEF classification in patients with dilated cardiomyopathies was unclear.
Does the choice of imaging method (volumetric vs biplane) or modality (MRI vs echocardiography) impact the determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in adult subjects?
Population
35 adult subjects including 25 patients with dilated cardiomyopathies
Comparison
Volumetric imaging methods vs biplane imaging methods
Design
Observational study comparing imaging strategies
Authors
Loading...
Biplane methods may misclassify LVEF versus volumetric approaches; leaves open optimal imaging strategy for serial monitoring.
Observational (n=35)
Does the choice of imaging method (volumetric vs biplane) or modality (MRI vs echocardiography) impact the determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in adult subjects?
p-value: p=<0.01
The choice of imaging method (volumetric vs biplane) has a greater impact on LV volume and systolic function measurement than the choice of imaging modality (echocardiography vs MRI).
Chuang et al. (2000) conducted an observational in Dilated cardiomyopathy (n=35). Volumetric imaging methods vs. Biplane imaging methods was evaluated on Left ventricular volume and LVEF functional categories (p=<0.01). The choice of imaging method (volumetric vs biplane) impacted LVEF categorization more than imaging modality, with biplane and volumetric methods differing in 24% to 44% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: