Semi-quantitative evaluation of LVEF improved assessment compared to visual estimation for both experienced and untrained observers, particularly for LVEF 30-49% and normal LVEF.
Observational (n=120)
Does a semi-quantitative evaluation method improve the accuracy of LVEF assessment from short-axis views compared to visual estimation by experienced and untrained observers?
A simplified semi-quantitative wall motion score index improves LVEF estimation from short-axis views for both experienced and novice observers in patients with normal or moderately reduced LVEF.
For the non-cardiologist emergency physician and intensivist, performing an accurate estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is essential for the management of critically ill patients, such as patients presenting with shock, severe respiratory distress or chest pain. Our objective was to develop a semi-quantitative method to improve visual LVEF evaluation. A group of 12 sets of transthoracic echocardiograms with LVEF in the range of 18-64% were interpreted by 17 experienced observers (PRO) and 103 untrained observers or novices (NOV), without previous training in echocardiography. They were asked to assess LVEF by two different methods: i) visual estimation (VIS) by analysing the three classical left ventricle (LV) short-axis views (basal, midventricular and apical short-axis LV section) and ii) semi-quantitative evaluation (base, mid and apex (BMA)) of the same three short-axis views. The results for each of these two methods for both groups (PRO and NOV) were compared with LVEF obtained by radionuclide angiography. The semi-quantitative method (BMA) improved estimation of LVEF by PRO for moderate LV dysfunction (LVEF 30-49%) and normal LVEF. The visual estimate was better for lower LVEF (<30%). In the NOV group, the semi-quantitative method was better than than the visual one in the normal group and in half of the subjects in the moderate LV dysfunction (LVEF 30-49%) group. The visual estimate was better for the lower LVEF (ejection fraction <30%) group. In conclusion, semi-quantitative evaluation of LVEF gives an overall better assessment than VIS for PRO and untrained observers.
Lebeau et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Left ventricular ejection fraction assessment (n=120). Semi-quantitative evaluation (BMA) vs. Visual estimation (VIS) was evaluated on Accuracy of LVEF estimation compared with radionuclide angiography. Semi-quantitative evaluation of LVEF improved assessment compared to visual estimation for both experienced and untrained observers, particularly for LVEF 30-49% and normal LVEF.