Cross-sectional echocardiography underestimated left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared to cineangiocardiography, though correlations were highly significant (r=0.909 for EF).
Observational (n=53)
53 patients with coronary artery disease evaluated for left ventricular volume and ejection fraction using cross-sectional echocardiography and cineangiocardiography.
Cross-sectional echocardiography vs Cineangiocardiography
Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF) — r = 0.936 for EDV; r = 0.970 for ESV; r = 0.909 for EF
Effect estimate: r = 0.936 for EDV; r = 0.970 for ESV; r = 0.909 for EF
In a prospective study the accuracy of cross-sectional echocardiography for determination of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) was analyzed in 53 patients with coronary artery disease and compared to that of cineangiocardiography (angio). From the apex of the heart phased-array wide-angle (84 degrees) electronic echocardiograms were received in the RAO-equivalent view. Angios were obtained in a 30 degree RAO view. Using Simpson's rule, end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) LV volumes were calculated and the EF derived. Left ventricular long axis was transected in eight segments, yielding seven diameters. In 50 of the 53 patients cross-sectional echocardiograms could be recorded. The correlation between cineangiocardiography and cross-sectional echocardiography for EDV was highly significant: r = 0.936, y = 0.667x + 27.1, standard error of estimate (syx) +/- 22.2 ml; for ESV: r = 0.970, y = 0.699x + 14.7, syx +/- 14.5 ml; for stroke volume: r = 0.721, y = 0.503x + 11.3, syx +/- 15.3 ml; for EF: r = 0.909, y = 0.740x + 11.3, syx +/- 6.0%. Angio mean long axis was 10.2 +/- 1.2 cm, cross-sectional echocardiographic long axis 8.7 +/- 1.3 cm. Mean LV diameter determined by cineangiocardiography was longer than when determined by cross-sectional echocardiography. The mean difference reached 2.0 cm in the middle of the LV. Our prospective comparative study revealed that LV volumes and EF were underestimated by cross-sectional echocardiography compared to cineangiocardiography because of a methodological systematic error caused by a tangential cut of the heart. In the RAO-equivalent view the "true" long axis was missed. The high corrleation coefficients, however, indicate that the "true" LV volume and EF can be calculated from the given regression equation. Serial measurements should be legitimated.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Raimund Erbel
Interventional Cardiology
P. Schweizer
Max-Planck-Institut für Nachhaltige Materialien
J. Meyer
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1
Clinical Cardiology
RWTH Aachen University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Erbel et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Coronary artery disease (n=53). Cross-sectional echocardiography vs. Cineangiocardiography was evaluated on Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF) (r = 0.936 for EDV; r = 0.970 for ESV; r = 0.909 for EF). Cross-sectional echocardiography underestimated left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared to cineangiocardiography, though correlations were highly significant (r=0.909 for EF).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a21aaf496850e9b858bad18 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.4960030604