Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging yielded a 6.6% lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction compared to 2D echocardiography, resulting in opposing eligibility outcomes for device therapy in 28% of patients.
Cross-Sectional (n=152)
Single-blind
No
Does LVEF assessment by CMR compared to 2D echocardiography alter eligibility for ICD/CRT therapy in heart failure patients?
CMR yields significantly lower LVEF measurements than 2D echocardiography, meaning the use of CMR with traditional 35% cut-offs would significantly increase the number of patients eligible for ICD/CRT implantation.
Mean Difference: -6.6
Absolute Event Rate: 24.9% vs 31.5%
OBJECTIVE: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have substantially improved the survival of patients with cardiomyopathy. Eligibility for this therapy requires a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35 %. This is largely based on studies using echocardiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is increasingly utilised for LVEF assessment, but several studies have shown differences between LVEF assessed by CMR and echocardiography. The present study compared LVEF assessment by CMR and echocardiography in a heart failure population and evaluated effects on eligibility for device therapy. METHODS: 152 patients (106 male, mean age 65.5 ± 9.9 years) referred for device therapy were included. During evaluation of eligibility they underwent both CMR and echocardiographic LVEF assessment. CMR volumes were computed from a stack of short-axis images. Echocardiographic volumes were computed using Simpson's biplane method. RESULTS: The study population demonstrated an underestimation of end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) by echocardiography of 71 ± 53 ml (mean ± SD) and 70 ± 49 ml, respectively. This resulted in an overestimation of LVEF of 6.6 ± 8.3 % by echocardiography compared with CMR (echocardiographic LVEF 31.5 ± 8.7 % and CMR LVEF 24.9 ± 9.6 %). 28 % of patients had opposing outcomes of eligibility for cardiac device therapy depending on the imaging modality used. CONCLUSION: We found EDV and ESV to be underestimated by echocardiography, and LVEF assessed by CMR to be significantly smaller than by echocardiography. Applying an LVEF cut-off value of 35 %, CMR would significantly increase the number of patients eligible for device implantation. Therefore, LVEF cut-off values might need reassessment when using CMR.
Haan et al. (Wed,) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic stable heart failure (n=152). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) vs. 2D echocardiography was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD -6.6%). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging yielded a 6.6% lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction compared to 2D echocardiography, resulting in opposing eligibility outcomes for device therapy in 28% of patients.