Key result
3DE underestimates LAV by ~9 mL compared to MRI.
Why the study?
Underestimation of left atrial volume by three-dimensional echocardiography has been frequently reported but not previously synthesized across studies.
Does three-dimensional echocardiography accurately measure left atrial volume compared to magnetic resonance imaging?
Meta-Analysis (n=395)
Does three-dimensional echocardiography accurately measure left atrial volume compared to magnetic resonance imaging?
Mean Difference: -9.4 (95% CI -13.2–-5.6)
p-value: p=< 0.00001
Three-dimensional echocardiography systematically underestimates left atrial volume compared to MRI, with greater underestimation in patients with cardiac disease.
Requires cautious clinical interpretation of 3DE LAV; confirms bias versus MRI and leaves open optimal adjustment strategies.
Background: Left atrial volume (LAV) is a fundamental prognostic factor in a variety of cardiac diseases including atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and valvular diseases. Developing a repeatable, noninvasive, and accurate method of measuring LAV is crucial. Three‐dimensional echocardiography (3DE) has achieved better estimation of LAV than two‐dimensional echocardiography. However, underestimation of LAV by 3DE has often been reported and no previous study has synthesized these data. The present study aimed at revealing existence and extent of bias in LAV measurement by 3DE and investigating related factors affecting the bias. Methods: Studies comparing LAV between 3DE and magnetic resonance imaging published before August 15, 2011 were eligible. A meta‐analysis with random effects model was performed to evaluate the systematic bias. Factors affecting the bias were investigated by univariate followed by multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 14 studies including 395 subjects revealed underestimation of LAV by 3DE (−9.4 mL; 95% confidence interval, −13.2 to −5.6mL; P < 0.00001, Fig. 2 ). Existence of cardiac disease led to more underestimation, whereas increasing the number of plane included in the analysis counteracted the underestimation (P < 0.00001 for each comparison). Conclusions: Only by synthesizing a number of small studies as a meta‐analysis could we display underestimation of LAV by 3DE and factors influencing the systematic bias. These data provide a more detailed basis for analyzing and improving the accuracy of 3DE, an indispensable step toward further clinical application in LAV assessment. (Echocardiography 2012;29:385‐390) Meta‐analysis of difference in left atrial volume between 3D‐echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Note the significant underestimation of left atrial volume by 3D‐echocardiography. 3DE = three‐dimensional echocardiography; CI = confidence interval; Max = maximal volume; Min = minimal volume; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; Nl = normal subjects; pl = planes; Pt = patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shimada et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiac diseases (n=395). Three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) vs. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated on Left atrial volume (LAV) measurement difference (MD -9.4 mL, 95% CI -13.2 to -5.6, p=< 0.00001). Three-dimensional echocardiography significantly underestimated left atrial volume compared to magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -9.4 mL; 95% CI -13.2 to -5.6 mL; P<0.00001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: