Key result
Volumetric CMR yields similar mean LVEF to Teichholz but assigns ~29% to different categories.
Why the study?
The accuracy of LVEF calculation using the Teichholz formula depends on geometric assumptions about LV shape, whereas volumetric CMR provides accurate and reproducible LV volumes without such assumptions.
Does volumetric CMR compared to the Teichholz formula change patient classification based on LVEF?
Cross-Sectional (n=262)
No
Does volumetric CMR compared to the Teichholz formula change patient classification based on LVEF?
Although average LVEF did not differ between volumetric and Teichholz methods by CMR, 29% of patients were reclassified into different EF categories, which may impact clinical decision-making and therapy selection.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is important for characterization and management of patients and selection of therapy. The Teichholz formula, Vol = 7D 3 /(2.4+D), is widely used, as it calculates LV volume using only LV diameter (D), but its accuracy depends on the accuracy of geometric assumptions about LV shape. Volumetric cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is accurate and reproducible for determination of LV volumes and EF, and does not require geometric assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arora et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional in Clinical assessment of left ventricular function (n=262). Teichholz formula for LVEF vs. Volumetric method for LVEF was evaluated on Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (p=0.89). Although mean left ventricular ejection fraction did not differ between Teichholz and volumetric methods (0.54 vs 0.54, p=0.89), 29% of patients were assigned to a different EF category.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: