Visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction by echocardiography is closely correlated with formal quantitative methods
Introduction
Left ventricular systolic function can be assessed by echocardiography and expressed as ejection fraction, wall motion score index, fractional shortening or atrioventricular (AV) plane displacement. These are all important prognostic measurements in patients with chronic heart failure or myocardial infarction and have shown good correlation with the gold standard method, radionuclide ventriculography [1], [2], [3], [4].
Compared to visual quantification, formal quantitative measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction, such as single- or biplane Simpson ejection fraction, may be considered superior echocardiographic methods for clinical and scientific use, because these methods may appear to be little influenced by subjectivity. But these methods are influenced by subjectivity, since the decision about were to mark the endocardial borders is subjective. Furthermore, besides being time consuming, the endocardial border tracing is sometimes difficult to perform, especially in patients with poor image quality, since it is performed on frozen images [4]. Consequently, the limits of agreement versus radionuclide examination are quite wide for these methods [4], [5], [6], [7]. Wall motion score index might be easier to perform in patients with poor image quality, since the segments are evaluated on moving images, but the method is still more time consuming than visual estimation of global ejection fraction. The wall motion score index method is also subjective.
Compared to formal echocardiographic methods for the evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction, visual estimation (eyeballing) can be done faster and is often easier to perform, even in patients with poor image quality. This method has also shown good correlation with the gold standard, radionuclide examination and formal echocardiographic methods in prior studies [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, the value of eyeballing ejection fraction is still questioned by some and may differ between echocardiographic laboratories. Furthermore, it has not been properly evaluated using second harmonic imaging. Therefore, we aimed to compare eyeballing ejection fraction with established, formal echocardiographic methods for the evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction, using modern equipment with second harmonic imaging.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The study conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.
Results
Mean values of the respective methods for the assessment of left ventricular systolic function were: eyeballing ejection fraction, 51.85±14.90 %; AV plane displacement, 11.07±2.70 mm; fractional shortening, 0.32±0.10; single four-chamber Simpson ejection fraction, 52.54±13.45%; biplane Simpson ejection fraction, 54.31±14.33%; and wall motion score index, 1.625±0.400 units. In simple regression analysis, all formal methods correlated significantly with eyeballing ejection fraction (p<0.001): AV
Discussion
In the present study, eyeballing ejection fraction correlated significantly with all formal quantitative methods for the evaluation of left ventricular systolic function. Both wall motion score index and biplane Simpson ejection fraction have been shown to correlate closely with radionuclide ventriculography, more closely than single four-chamber Simpson ejection fraction, fractional shortening and AV plane displacement [7], [16], [17]. Thus, in the present study, the correlation between
Conclusion
Eyeballing ejection fraction correlated significantly with all formal methods for the evaluation of left ventricular systolic function. The correlation with eyeballing ejection fraction improved with the reliability of and the number of views used by the formal quantitative method. This finding is in concordance with prior studies, indicating that eyeballing ejection fraction may be the most accurate echocardiographic method for the assessment of left ventricular systolic function. Since it is
References (19)
- et al.
Comparison of different echocardiographic methods with radionuclide imaging for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction during acute myocardial infarctiontreated by thrombolytic therapy
Am. J. Cardiol.
(1998) - et al.
Comparison and reproducibility of visual echocardiographic and quantitative radionuclide left ventricular ejection fractions
Am. J. Cardiol.
(1996) - et al.
Left ventricular function in patients with atrial fibrillation before and after cardioversion
Am. J. Cardiol.
(1992) - et al.
Two-dimensional echocardiographic evaluation of the size, function and shape of the left ventricle in chronic aortic regurgitation: comparison with radionuclide angiography
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(1984) - et al.
Non-invasive measurement of left ventricular function in coronary artery disease. Comparison of first pass radionuclide ventriculography, M-mode echocardiography, and systolic time intervals
Br. Heart J.
(1981) - et al.
A prospective comparison of echocardiographic wall motion score index and radionuclide ejection fraction in predicting outcome following acute myocardial infarction
Heart
(2001) - et al.
An echocardiographic method for selecting high risk patients shortly after acute myocardial infarction, for inclusion in multi-centre studies (as used in the TRACE study), TRAndolapril Cardiac Evaluation
Eur. Heart J.
(1994) - et al.
Left ventricular atrioventricular plane displacement: an echocardiographic technique for rapid assessment of prognosis in heart failure
Heart
(1997) - et al.
Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes by real-time, two-dimensional echocardiography. A comparison of cineangiographic and radionuclide techniques
Circulation
(1979)
Cited by (158)
Hemodynamic profile of cirrhotic patients with sepsis and septic shock: A propensity score matched case-control study
2024, Journal of Critical CareIntraoperative Noninvasive Left Ventricular Myocardial Work Indices in Patients Undergoing On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
2023, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular AnesthesiaEchocardiographic Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of the Hyperdynamic Heart: A ‘Super-Normal’ Heart is not a Normal Heart
2023, American Journal of CardiologyLeft Ventricular Ejection Fraction Correlation With Stroke Volume as Estimated by Doppler Echocardiography in Cardiogenic Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study
2022, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular AnesthesiaCitation Excerpt :Visual estimation was used for LVEF when the Simpson's method was not possible due to inadequate endocardial definition. Studies have demonstrated that Simpson's method and visual assessment correlate very well.14,15 Pulsed wave Doppler was used to measure the LVOT VTI by placing a sample volume at 0.5 to 1 cm proximal to the aortic valve, and the LVOT diameter was measured at the aortic valve cusps insertion points.
Advanced Echocardiography Techniques: The Future Stethoscope of Systemic Diseases
2022, Current Problems in CardiologyThe Association of Moderate Aortic Stenosis with Poor Survival Is Modified by Age and Left Ventricular Function: Insights from SHEBAHEART Big Data
2022, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography