Key result
Biplane Simpson method yields ~99% accuracy vs. 4D echocardiography for LVEF assessment.
Why the study?
Accurate assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by echocardiography is essential but conventional methods have limitations in accuracy and reproducibility compared to 4D echocardiography.
Do conventional echocardiographic methods (M-mode, biplane Simpson, WMSI, GLS) accurately assess LVEF compared to 4D echocardiography across different cardiac conditions?
Cohort (n=150)
Do conventional echocardiographic methods (M-mode, biplane Simpson, WMSI, GLS) accurately assess LVEF compared to 4D echocardiography across different cardiac conditions?
4D echocardiography offers the most accurate assessment of LVEF and volumes, but biplane Simpson's method remains highly accurate (98.7%) and suitable for routine clinical use as a conventional alternative.
Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading global cause of death, making accurate assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) essential. Echocardiography is widely used, including M-mode, biplane Simpson’s, wall motion score index(WMSI), global longitudinal strain(GLS), and 4D echocardiography, but conventional methods have limitations in accuracy and reproducibility. This study aimed to compare LVEF assessment by M-mode, Simpson’s biplane, GLS and WMSI against 4D echocardiography. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted from April 2024 to April 2025 and included 150 patients(mean age 44.59±15.37 years; 54% were females) were classified as normal(n=38), heart failure(n=34), ischemic heart disease(n=64), and valvular heart disease(n=14). All underwent echocardiography using GE Vivid E95. LVEF and volumes were measured by M-mode(Teichholz), biplane Simpson, WMSI(16-segment model), GLS, and 4D echocardiography with automated volumetric analysis. Results: Statistical significant differences were found in ESV and EDV across modalities(p<0.05), especially in heart failure(ESV p<0.0001) and ischemic groups(p<0.05), with M-mode showing higher values. LVEF, WMSI, and GLS showed highly sstatistical significant variation(p=0.0001), while stroke volume was not statistically significant(p=0.131). 4D echocardiography showed significant differences in EDV(p=0.001), ESV(p<0.0001), SV(p=0.004), CO(p=0.001), and LVEF(p<0.0001). LVEF differed across modalities overall(p<0.05), but not in normal(p=0.095) or valvular groups(p=0.061). Diagnostic accuracy vs 4D was highest for biplane Simpson(98.7%), followed by M-mode(96.7%) and WMSI(96.7%), while GLS was lowest(90%). Conclusion: 4D echocardiography was most accurate, especially in abnormal ventricular geometry; biplane Simpson was the best conventional method, closely matching 4D and suitable for routine use. GLS detected early subtle dysfunction even with normal ejection fraction, and WMSI effectively assessed ischemic severity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khalil et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Normal, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and valvular heart disease (n=150). Conventional echocardiography methods (M-mode, biplane Simpson's, WMSI, GLS) vs. 4D echocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy compared to 4D echocardiography (p=<0.05). Biplane Simpson's method demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (98.7%) compared to 4D echocardiography for left ventricular ejection fraction assessment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: