Discrepancies in Left Ventricular Mass Calculation Based on Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Measurements in Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

Seo, Hee-Young; Lee, Seung–Pyo; Park, Jun Bean; Lee, Joo Myung; Park, Eun‐Ah; Chang, Sung-A; Kim, Yong Jin; Park, Sung‐Ji; Lee, Whal; Lee, Sang‐Chol; Park, Seung Woo; Sohn, Dae‐Won; Choe, Yeon Hyeon

doi:10.1016/j.echo.2015.06.009

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the ASE formula is recommended for use in patients without major distortions in LV geometry [5]. The approach developed by Teichholz et al for correcting systematic errors in the LVV formula attempts to take changes of con guration into account and correct the cube function formula to LVV=[7.0/2.4+r](D) 3 as an adaption to the observed curvilinear changes in the enlarging left ventricle [17,18]. This component of the Th formula may also be the reason for the declining trend in ΔLVMI described above.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, echocardiographic linear measurement and LVM calculation by cube function formulas have their own limitations [10][11][12][13]. The current recommended formula from the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) is based on special geometric assumptions, which may become inaccurate in the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy, eccentric remodeling, or distortion of left ventricular (LV) geometry and may lead to an incremental overestimation of LVMI [3,[14][15][16][17]. Teichholz et al designed a formula that includes a volume-correcting function in order to minimize the error inter alia in patients with LVH [18].…”

Section: Page 3/17mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantification of left ventricular mass by echocardiography compared to cardiac magnet resonance imaging in hemodialysis patients

Grebe

Malzahn

Donhauser

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), defined by the left ventricular mass index (LVMI), is highly prevalent in hemodialysis patients and a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), echocardiography tends to overestimate the LVMI. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic performance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) compared to CMR regarding the assessment of LVMI in hemodialysis patients.MethodsTTR and CMR data for 95 hemodialysis patients who participated in the MiREnDa trial were analyzed. The LVMI was calculated by two-dimensional (2D) TTE-guided M-mode measurements employing the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and Teichholz (Th) formulas, which were compared to the reference method, CMR.ResultsLVH was present in 44% of patients based on LVMI measured by CMR. LVMI measured by echocardiography correlated moderately with CMR, ASE: r=0.44 (0.34-0.62); Th: r=0.44(0.32-0.62). Compared to CMR, both echocardiographic formulas overestimated LVMI (mean ∆LVMI (ASE-CMR): 19.5±19.48 g/m2, p<0.001; mean ∆LVMI (Th-CMR): 15.9±15.89 g/m2, p<0.001). We found greater LVMI overestimation in patients with LVH using the ASE formula compared to the Th formula. Stratification of patients into CMR LVMI quartiles showed a continuous decrease in ∆LVMI with increasing CMR LVMI quartiles for the Th formula (p<0.001) but not for the ASE formula (p=0.772). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the Th formula had a constant bias independent of LVMI. Both methods had good discrimination ability for the detection of LVH (ROC-AUC: 0.819 (0.737-0.901) and 0.808 (0.723-0.892) for Th and ASE, respectively).ConclusionsThe ASE and Th formulas overestimate LVMI in hemodialysis patients. However, the overestimation is less with the Th formula, particularly with increasing LVMI. The results suggest that the Th formula should be preferred for measurement of LVMI in chronic hemodialysis patients.Trial registrationThe data was derived from the following clinical trial: NCT01691053, registered on 19 September 2012 before enrollment of the first participant, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01691053?term=NCT01691053&draw=2&rank=1.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Page 3/17mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of left ventricular mass by echocardiography compared to cardiac magnet resonance imaging in hemodialysis patients

Grebe

Malzahn

Donhauser

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the operator manually exclude LA tissue at base levels of LV for the calculation of LVEF, LVM and CO. For most 2D imaging techniques, including echocardiography and computed tomography (CT), selection of imaging planes can significantly affect the measures of cardiac function and mass (12, 13). As a result, the existence of systemic bias for measuring LVEF and LVM among between standard clinical methods is not a surprise (14). For example, M-mode echocardiography, a 2D technique which needs manual selection of appropriate imaging planes, seems to systematic overestimate LVM as compared with transesophageal 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) and MRI (7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Assessment of Left Ventricular Function and Mass Using Heart Deformation Analysis:

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the performance of automated quantification of left ventricular function and mass based on heart deformation analysis (HDA) in asymptomatic older adults Materials and methods This study complied with HIPAA regulations. Following the approval of the institutional review board (IRB), 160 asymptomatic older participants were recruited for cardiac MRI including two-dimensional (2D) cine images covering the entire left ventricle (LV) in short-axis view. Data analysis included the calculation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mass (LVM) and cardiac output (CO) using HDA and standard global cardiac function analysis (delineation of end systolic and diastolic LV epi- and endo-cardial borders). The agreement between methods was evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV). Results HDA had a shorter processing time than standard method (1.5 ± 0.3 minute/case vs. 5.8 ± 1.4 minute/case, p < 0.001). There was good agreement for LVEF (ICC = 0.552, CoV = 10.5%), CO (ICC = 0.773, CoV = 13.5%) and LVM (ICC = 0.859, CoV = 14.5%) acquired with standard method and HDA. There was a systemic bias towards lower LVEF (62.8% ± 8.3% vs.69.3% ± 6.7%, p < 0.001) and CO (4.4 ± 1.0 L/minute vs. 4.8 ± 1.3 L/minute, p < 0.001) by HDA compared to the standard technique. Conversely, HDA overestimated LVM (114.8 ± 30.1g vs. 100.2 ± 29.0g, p < 0.001) as compared to the reference method. Conclusion HDA has the potential to measure LVEF, CO, and LVM without the need for user interaction based on standard cardiac 2D Cine images.

show abstract

“…[4][5][6][7] Today, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the reference method for LV mass assessment. [11][12][13] These limitations have been largely circumvented by the use of three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), because it is the only echocardiographic technique that measures myocardial mass directly, without geometric assumptions regarding LV shape and distribution of wall thickening. Although two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) has been used to measure LV mass, several studies have demonstrated that its accuracy is limited, when compared to CMR, due to the geometrical assumptions this methodology relies upon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) has been used to measure LV mass, several studies have demonstrated that its accuracy is limited, when compared to CMR, due to the geometrical assumptions this methodology relies upon. [11][12][13] These limitations have been largely circumvented by the use of three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), because it is the only echocardiographic technique that measures myocardial mass directly, without geometric assumptions regarding LV shape and distribution of wall thickening. Noteworthy is the gradual improvement in the accuracy of 3DE-based LV mass evaluation with incremental refinements in 3DE technology reported in a recent meta-analysis study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated, machine learning‐based, 3D echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular mass

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although 3D echocardiography (3DE) circumvents many limitations of 2D echocardiography by allowing direct measurements of left ventricular (LV) mass, it is seldom used in clinical practice due to time-consuming analysis. A recently developed 3DE machine learning (ML) approach allows automated determination of LV mass. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of this new approach by comparing it to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) reference and to conventional 3DE volumetric analysis. Methods:We prospectively studied 23 patients who underwent 3DE (Philips EPIQ) and CMR imaging on the same day. Single-beat wide-angle 3D datasets of the left ventricle were acquired. LV mass was quantified using the new automated software (Philips HeartModel) with manual corrections when necessary and using conventional volumetric analysis (TomTec). CMR analysis was performed by manual slice-byslice tracing of LV endo-and epicardial boundaries. Reproducibility of the ML approach was assessed using repeated measurements and quantified by intra-class correlation (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CoV).Results: Automated LV mass measurements were feasible in 20 patients (87%). The results were similar to CMR-derived values (Bland-Altman bias 5 g, limits of agreement ±37 g) and also to the conventional 3DE analysis (bias 7 g, ±27 g). Processing time was considerably shorter: 1.02 ± 0.24 minutes (CMR: 2.20 ± 0.13 minutes;TomTec: 2.36 ± 0.09 minutes), although manual corrections were performed in most patients. Repeated measurements showed high reproducibility: ICC = 0.99; CoV = 4 ± 5%.Conclusions: 3D Echocardiography analysis of LV mass using novel ML-based algorithm is feasible, fast, and accurate and may thus facilitate the incorporation of 3DE measurements of LV mass into clinical practice. K E Y W O R D S2D echocardiography, 3D echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, left ventricular mass, machine learning | 313 VOLPATO eT AL.

show abstract

Discrepancies in Left Ventricular Mass Calculation Based on Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Measurements in Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

Cited by 24 publications

References 33 publications

Quantification of left ventricular mass by echocardiography compared to cardiac magnet resonance imaging in hemodialysis patients

Quantification of left ventricular mass by echocardiography compared to cardiac magnet resonance imaging in hemodialysis patients

Automated Assessment of Left Ventricular Function and Mass Using Heart Deformation Analysis:

Automated, machine learning‐based, 3D echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular mass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About