PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 2, 2015European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging108 citationsOpen Access

Accuracy of cardiac CT, radionucleotide and invasive ventriculography, two- and three-dimensional echocardiography, and SPECT for left and right ventricular ejection fraction compared with cardiac MRI: a meta-analysis

View Full Paper
CPChristopher A. PickettBrooke Army Medical CenterMCMichael K. CheezumNewYork–Presbyterian HospitalDKDavid KassopWomack Army Medical Center

Key Result

Cardiac CT and 3D echocardiography had the lowest bias (<5% for RVEF) and best agreement (r>0.75) with cardiac MRI for estimating ventricular ejection fraction compared to other modalities.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=8,767)

Structured PICO

Do CT, 3DE, 2DE, RNV, ICV, and SPECT accurately measure LVEF and RVEF compared with cardiac MRI?

P
Population
Patients requiring left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) assessment (174 studies with 7,047 patients for LVEF; 46 studies with 1,720 patients for RVEF)
I
Intervention
Cardiac computed tomography (CT), two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE), three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), radionucleotide ventriculography (RNV), gated single-photon emission CT (SPECT), and invasive cardiac cine ventriculography (ICV)
C
Comparator
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the gold standard
O
Outcome
Accuracy of LVEF and RVEF measurement (pooled bias, limits of agreement, and correlation coefficient)surrogate

Cardiac CT and 3D echocardiography provide the most accurate estimates of LVEF and RVEF with the best agreement to the gold standard of cardiac MRI.

Abstract

AIMS: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) are important tools in clinical decision-making. We hypothesized that two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE), three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), radionucleotide ventriculography (RNV), cardiac computed tomography (CT), gated single-photon emission CT (SPECT), and invasive cardiac cine ventriculography (ICV) provide variable accuracy for LVEF and RVEF when using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a gold standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched published databases for studies comparing LVEF and RVEF measured by CT, 3DE, 2DE, RNV, ICV, and SPECT compared with MRI. We utilized meta-analytic methods to determine the pooled bias (mean weighted difference), limits of agreement (LOA), and correlation coefficient for each modality. For LVEF, 174 studies (7047 patients) were included. For RVEF, 46 studies (1720 patients) were included. Pooled LOA for LVEF were different between modalities: CT and 3DE had smaller LOA than 2DE, SPECT, ICV, and RNV. 2DE showed the largest LOA and a weaker correlation for LVEF (-13.3 to 12.1%, r = 0.660). For RVEF, CT and 3DE have the best data to support their use with a bias 0.75. CONCLUSION: For LVEF, CT and 3DE had the lowest bias and the best agreement with MRI. Compared with MRI, CT and 3DE comparably estimate RVEF and have the most evidence to support their use.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pickett et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis in Left and right ventricular ejection fraction assessment (n=8,767). Cardiac CT, 3DE, 2DE, RNV, ICV, and SPECT vs. Cardiac MRI was evaluated on Pooled bias, limits of agreement, and correlation coefficient for LVEF and RVEF. Cardiac CT and 3D echocardiography had the lowest bias (<5% for RVEF) and best agreement (r>0.75) with cardiac MRI for estimating ventricular ejection fraction compared to other modalities.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0f9e26d03631df9ce9cdbehttps://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeu313
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper