Key result
Girth-estimated body weight correlates moderately with scale weight, yielding slightly lower indexed LVEDV.
Why the study?
Left ventricular volumetric measurements using the single-plane Simpson method of discs require body size normalization. This study aimed to describe these volumes in healthy Brazilian Sport Horses and evaluate thoracic-girth-estimated body weight versus scale-measured weight for indexing.
Does thoracic-girth-estimated body weight accurately index echocardiographic left ventricular volumes compared to scale-measured weight in healthy Brazilian Sport Horses?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Does thoracic-girth-estimated body weight accurately index echocardiographic left ventricular volumes compared to scale-measured weight in healthy Brazilian Sport Horses?
In athletic Brazilian Sport Horses, normalizing echocardiographic left ventricular volumes to body weight improves interindividual comparability, with scale-measured weight preferred over thoracic-girth estimation due to estimation errors.
Scale-measured weight may remain preferable to girth estimation for indexing equine LV volumes; leaves open whether estimation error affects diagnostic accuracy in horses with cardiac disease.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) volume assessment evaluates cardiac size and remodelling in horses. Single-plane Simpson method of discs (SMOD) provides volumetric measurements requiring body size normalization. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: We described LV volumes using SMOD in healthy Brazilian Sport Horses (BH) and evaluated thoracic-girth-estimated body weight (BWe) versus scale-measured weight (BWs) for indexing. METHODS: Thirty BH horses (15 males, 15 females; 4-16 years) underwent echocardiography. LV end-diastolic (LVEDV), end-systolic volumes (LVESV), and ejection fraction (EF%) were obtained using SMOD. Body weight was scale-measured and estimated via thoracic girth formula. Volumes were indexed to BWs, BWe, and a 500-kg reference. RESULTS: Mean LVEDV was 1060 ± 154 mL (95% CI: 1003-1118), LVESV 318 ± 77 mL (95% CI: 290-347), and EF 70.0 ± 5.4%. Overall, BWe was associated with BWs (R² = 0.61; P < 0.0001) with mean bias of +33.25 kg (limits of agreement: -37.59 to +104.09 kg), mean absolute error of 39 ± 28.83 kg, and percentage error of 8.92 ± 7.27%. LVEDV/BWs averaged 2.30 ± 0.29 mL/kg and LVEDV/BWe 2.15 ± 0.26 mL/kg. Normalization to 500 kg yielded LVEDV[500] of 1151 ± 146 and 1069 ± 131 mL, and LVESV[500] of 346 ± 83 and 321 ± 70 mL (BWs; BWe). Indexed variables showed moderate to strong linear association between methods. In this sample, no sex or age differences were detected. CONCLUSION: Body weight normalization improved interindividual comparability. While BWe offers a practical field alternative, estimation errors warrant caution in individual evaluations, making BWs preferred.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolff et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy athletic Brazilian Sport Horses (n=30). Thoracic-girth-estimated body weight (BWe) indexing vs. Scale-measured body weight (BWs) indexing was evaluated on Indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV/BW) and agreement between BWe and BWs (R² = 0.61, p=<0.0001). Thoracic-girth-estimated body weight correlated with scale weight (R²=0.61; P<0.0001; bias +33.25 kg), yielding mean indexed LVEDV of 2.15 vs 2.30 mL/kg.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: