Why the study?
The variety of methods for left ventricular noncompacted myocardial mass assessment may influence results and their associations with LV volume and ejection fraction are unclear.
Does Hautvast's computed algorithm-based approach improve observer variability and correlation with LV parameters compared to Jacquier's method for measuring left ventricular hypertrabeculation mass?
Cross-Sectional (n=77)
No
Does Hautvast's computed algorithm-based approach improve observer variability and correlation with LV parameters compared to Jacquier's method for measuring left ventricular hypertrabeculation mass?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.981% vs 0.15%
A semiautomatic, computed algorithm-based approach (Hautvast's method) for measuring left ventricular hypertrabeculation mass is less observer-dependent and correlates better with LV volumes and ejection fraction than the manual Jacquier's method.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies concerning left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) suggest that the extent of left ventricular (LV) hypertrabeculation has no impact on prognosis. The variety of methods of LV noncompacted myocardial mass (NCM) assessment may influence the results. Hence, we compared two methods of NCM estimation: largely observer-independent Hautvast's(H) computed algorithm-based approach and commonly used Jacquier's(J) method, and their associations with LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and ejection fraction (EF). METHODS: Cardiac magnetic resonance images of 77 persons (45±17yo) - 42 LVNC, 15 non-ischemic dilative cardiomyopathy, 20 control group were analyzed. LVNC patients were divided into the subgroup with normal (LVNCN) and high EDV (LVNCDCM). NCM and total left ventricular mass (LVM) were estimated by Hautvast's [excluding intertrabecular blood (ITB) and including papillary muscles (PMs) into NCM] and Jacquier's approach (including ITB and PMs, if unclearly distinguished, into NCM). RESULTS: The cut-off value of NCM for LVNC diagnosis was 22% (AUC 0.933) for NCMH/LVMH and 26% (AUC 0.883) for NCMJ/LVMJ. Inter- and intra-observer variability (estimated by coefficient of variation [CoV] and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) of NCMH/LVMH appeared better than of NCMJ/LVMJ (CoV 4.3%, ICC 0.981 and CoV 4.9%, ICC 0.978; respectively for NCMH/LVMH, while for NCMJ/LVMJ: CoV 19.7%, ICC 0.15 and CoV 12.9%, ICC 0.504). In LVNCN subgroup, the correlation between EDV and NCMH was stronger than NCMJ (r = 0.677, p<0.001 vs. r = 0.480, p = 0.038; respectively). In LVNC the EDV correlated with NCMH/LVMH (r = 0.391, p<0.01), but not with NCMJ/LVMJ. In the overall group a relationship was present between EF and NCMH/LVMH (r = -0.449, p<0.001), but not NCMJ/LVMJ. Only NCMH/LVMH explained the variability of EDV (b 0.434, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Choosing a method of NCM assessment that is less observer-dependent might increase the reliability of results. The impact of method selection on the LV parameters and cut-off values for hypertrabeculation should be further investigated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kubik et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) (n=77). Hautvast's computed algorithm vs. Jacquier's method was evaluated on Inter-observer reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient) for noncompacted/compacted layer mass ratio.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: