Key result
Automated LVEF analysis programs yield significantly discordant measurements across healthy subjects and heart failure patients.
Why the study?
LVEF criteria for normality depend on the automatic program used, and inter-program measurement of LVEF is poorly reproducible, impacting clinical comparisons.
Do different automatic programs for evaluating radionuclide LVEF yield comparable results in healthy subjects and heart failure patients?
Observational (n=73)
Do different automatic programs for evaluating radionuclide LVEF yield comparable results in healthy subjects and heart failure patients?
Different automatic programs for calculating radionuclide LVEF yield significantly different values, highlighting the need for caution when comparing LVEF data across different centers or software platforms.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caution advised comparing LVEF across automatic programs; cross-sectional data leaves open standardization needs.
The aim of this study was to compare three automatic programs (P1, P2, P3) for evaluating radionuclide left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to emphasize the clinical consequences. Gated radionuclide ventriculography was performed in 73 subjects, 15 of whom were healthy and 58 of whom had experienced heart failure. All scintigraphic data were processed with the three programs. Good inter-observer, intra-observer and automatic-manual reproducibility were observed using each of the three programs. On the other hand, in the normal subjects, the three mean normal LVEF values were significantly different from each other (P1 = 77 +/- 5%, P2 = 63 +/- 7%, P3 = 68 +/- 8%; P < 0.0001) In the pathological patients, the values obtained with P2 were significantly different from those obtained using P1 and P3 (P1= 32 +/- 15%, P2 = 26 +/- 13%; P < 0.0001), Moreover, the linear regression studies between the three automatic programs were always significantly different from the identity line equation (y = x). This study shows that LVEF criteria for normality depend on the program used, and inter-program measurement of LVEF is poorly reproducible. Caution is recommended when comparing data obtained from different centres (or different computers), either in the follow-up of a given patient or in gathering results from patient groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Véra et al. (1995) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=73). Automatic programs (P1, P2, P3) for LVEF evaluation vs. Comparison between programs was evaluated on Radionuclide left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=<0.0001). Three automatic programs for evaluating LVEF yielded significantly different values in healthy subjects and heart failure patients (P<0.0001), showing poor inter-program reproducibility.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: