Quantitative assessment of left ventricular size and function in cardiac transplant recipients: Side‐by‐side comparison of real time two‐dimensional echocardiography, contrast‐enhanced two‐dimensional echocardiography, three‐dimensional echocardiography, and contrast‐enhanced three‐dimensional echocardiography as compared to magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

Introduction:We evaluate the ability of 2D non-contrast-enhanced echocardiography (CE-echo), 2DCE-echo, 3D-echo, 3D non-CE-echo, and 3DCE-echo to evaluate allograft function and dimensions in orthotropic heart transplantation (OHT). Cardiac resonance (CMR) was used as reference.Methods: Twenty six consecutive OHT-recipients were prospectively recruited.Bland-Altman, Spearman rank, and concordance-correlation coefficients (CCC) were determined.Results: Good CCCs were found between the four modalities and CMR for ejection fraction (r ≥ 0.72/P < 0.001; r ≥ 0.77/ P < 0.001; r ≥ 0.51/ P < 0.23; r ≥ 0.75/ P < 0.001, respectively). Highest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was for 2D CE-echo(CCC = 0.77). End-diastolic volume(EDV) measurements statistically differed when 2D non-CE-echo, 2DCE-echo, and 3D non-CE-echo were compared with the cross-sectional imaging modalities, but they did not differ significantly from 3DCE-echo. End-systolic volume (ESV) and stroke volume (SV) differed statistically between the four modalities; however, SV measured by CMR and 3DCE-echo were comparable. Overall, 2D non-CE-echo, 2DCE-echo, and 3D non-CE-echo showed lower mean EDV, ESV, and SV than CMR. ICC was that of the ESV variable in the 4 techniques, with the values of the ICC of the 3DCE-echo technique superior to the rest. Overall, the best CCC were found for 3DCE(r = 0.88, 0.92 and 0.76 for EDV, ESV and SV, respectively). Conclusion: Routine use of 3DCE-echo may allow more comprehensive cardiac assessment in cardiac transplant recipients. | 307 RODRIGUEZ-MAÑERO Et Al. How to cite this article: Rodriguez-Mañero M, Azcárate-Agüero P, Kreidieh B, et al. Quantitative assessment of left ventricular size and function in cardiac transplant recipients: Side-by-side comparison of real time two-dimensional echocardiography, contrast-enhanced two-dimensional echocardiography, three-dimensional echocardiography, and contrast-enhanced three-dimensional echocardiography as compared to magnetic resonance imaging. Echocardiography. 2019;36:306-311.

Global longitudinal strain at 3 months after therapy can predict late cardiotoxicity in breast cancer

“…Contrast‐enhanced echocardiography and GLS was adopted to assess left ventricular function in this study. For LVEF measures, a stronger association between contrast‐enhanced echocardiography and CMR was discovered 20 . In the BC patients in our study, c‐LVEF decreased after a two‐year follow‐up, and c‐LVEF at 3 months (T1) can predict development of CTR‐CVT.…”

“…For LVEF measures, a stronger association between contrast‐enhanced echocardiography and CMR was discovered. 20 In the BC patients in our study, c‐LVEF decreased after a two‐year follow‐up, and c‐LVEF at 3 months (T1) can predict development of CTR‐CVT. Over the past 10 years, GLS has become a reliable indicator of subclinical LV dysfunction and is more sensitive than LVEF at detecting early changes in LV function.…”

Effects of Different LVEF Assessed by Echocardiography and CMR on the Diagnosis and Therapeutic Decisions of Cardiovascular Diseases

“…However, as LVEF is inversely related with LVEDV, a reduced LVEF is associated with an enlarged LVEDV (Table 1), and it might be difficult to accurately assess the LVEF with clinical commonly used biplane echocardiography, particularly under the condition of pathological asymmetric LV remodeling. 3-dimensional (3D) EC may improve the accuracy of assessing LVEF because of the absence of geometric assumptions pertaining to LV contour (Benameur et al, 2019;Rodriguez-Mañero et al, 2019). Routine use of 3D (contrast enhanced) EC may allow more accurate cardiac function (Thomas et al, 2012), but more evidence are needed to provide LVEF cut-offs for clinic because the recommended LVEF cut-offs in the guidelines are based on clinical trials in which many used 2D EC to assess LVEF.…”

Effect Evaluation of Echocardiography on Right Ventricular Function in Patients after the Recovering from Coronavirus Disease 2019

“…Due to the asymmetry and complex spatial structure of the right ventricular ventricle, conventional two-dimensional echocardiography is not reliable enough to assess right ventricular function [15]. The acquisition of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography images does not need to rely on specific time and direction, so the volume and function of the right ventricle can be assessed in a real-time, accurate, and reliable manner, with positive application value [16]. Echocardiography is of positive significance in assessing right ventricular function in patients after COVID-19 recovery [17].…”