Reliability of reporting left ventricular systolic function by echocardiography: A systematic review of 3 methods

McGowan, James; Cleland, John G.F.

doi:10.1016/s0002-8703(03)00248-5

Cited by 233 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our rationale was that estimation of LVEF is challenging and the Simpson rule requires accurate tracing of endocardial borders, which sometimes can be difficult. 23 Interestingly, 10 patients experienced deterioration in LVEF of ≥5 percentage units after discharge, but only 2 of the patients with LVEF of 36% to 40% at inclusion met the indication for ICD after 3 months. However, even patients with a mildly reduced LVEF at discharge should receive optimized medical therapy for congestive heart failure and should be followed up with repeat echocardiography.…”

Section: Mildly Impaired Lvef At Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Evolution of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction After Acute Myocardial Infarction

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guidelines advocate primary preventive ICDs for patients with LVEF ≤35% after >40 days after AMI, but a delay of at least 3 months is recommended after revascularization. Implantation of primary preventive ICDs is also recommended for patients with LVEF ≤40%, nonsustained ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular tachyarrhythmias) caused by prior AMI, and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias during electrophysiological studies. 13 The optimal timing for ICD implantation has not been evaluated in prospective studies.14 A substudy of Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II showed more benefit with ICD in patients with more remote AMI, 15 but post hoc analysis of the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) study implicates that the duration after AMI does not modify Background-Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy improves survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Although the risk of sudden cardiac death is highest in the first month after AMI, there is no survival benefit of early implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, and the optimal time frame has yet to be established. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate what proportion of post-AMI patients had improved LV function to such an extent that the indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was no longer present. Methods and Results-Patients admitted for AMI with reduced LVEF (≤40%) were eligible for inclusion. Repeat echocardiographic examinations were performed 5 days, 1 month, and 3 months after the AMI. We prospectively included 100 patients with LVEF of 31±5.8% after AMI. At the 1-month follow-up, 55% had an LVEF >35%. The main improvement in LVEF had occurred by 1 month. The mean difference in LVEF over the next 2 months was small, 1.9 percentage units. During the first 9 weeks, 10% of the patients suffered from life-threatening arrhythmias. Conclusions-Most patients have improved LVEF after AMI, and in the majority, the improvement can be confirmed after 1 month, implying that further delay of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation may not be warranted. The aim of this study was to investigate what proportion of patients with reduced LV function after an AMI reached an LVEF >35%, thereby no longer qualifying for ICD treatment. We also investigated the time to improvement to allow earlier identification of possible ICD candidates. MethodsPatients admitted with AMI at Danderyd University Hospital or Södersjukhuset in Stockholm between November 2010 and December 2013 were eligible for participation in the study if a clinical echocardiography showed an LVEF of ≤40%. An AMI was defined according to the second and third universal definitions of myocardial infarction. 19,20 All clinical echocardiographies of potentially eligible patients were reviewed by a participating research cardiologist with echocardiographic expertise who confirmed that the LVEF was indeed ≤40% according to the modified Simpso...

show abstract

Section: Mildly Impaired Lvef At Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Evolution of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction After Acute Myocardial Infarction

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accuracy of LVEF assessment is approximately Ϯ2% to 6% for radionuclide angiography 6 and in excess of Ϯ10% for both visual estimation and calculation by Simpson's rule with echocardiography. 7 Reduced LVEF has been the most consistently reported risk factor for overall mortality and SCD in the heart failure population.…”

Section: Left Ventricular Ejection Fractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation/Heart Rhythm Society Scientific Statement on Noninvasive Risk Stratification Techniques for Identifying Patients at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death

Goldberger¹,

Cain²,

Hohnloser³

et al. 2008

Circulation

779

361

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Echocardiographic data recorded for analysis included left ventricular enddiastolic volume (LVEDV) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) by biplane Simpson's method and HR [10]. CO calculated by echo was determined by HR * stroke volume (SV = LVEDV -LVESV).…”

Section: Transthoracic Echocardiographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a Novel Method for Cardiac Output Estimation by CT Coronary Angiography

Mehta¹,

Choi²,

Sanai³

et al. 2012

ACT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cardiac output can be estimated during retrospectively gated CT coronary angiography by anatomically determining left ventricular volumes; prospective triggering to minimize radiation precludes this methodology. We propose an alternative method for cardiac output estimation based on preclinical models suggesting that cardiac output may be inversely related to contrast washout from the aortic root during timing bolus scanning, as measured by peak aortic root contrast attenuation. Methods: 34 patients had CT coronary angiography timing bolus performed with 20 ml iodixanol at 5.5 ml/s followed by 20 ml normal saline at 5.5 ml/s through an 18-Ga antecubital catheter. Peak aortic root contrast attenuation was correlated to cardiac output calculated by echocardiography using heart rate stroke volume from biplane Simpson's method. Results: Mean age was 58 ± 13 years; body surface area, 2.0 ± 0.5 m 2 . 53% were women. Stroke volume, cardiac output and cardiac index were 67 ± 19 ml, 4.5 ± 1.6 L/min, and 2.2 ± 0.7 L/min/m 2 , respectively. Peak aortic root contrast attenuation was 207 ± 46 HU and correlated to cardiac output and cardiac index with r = -0.64, p < 0.0001 and r = -0.55, p < 0.001, respectively. Regression analysis estimates cardiac output = -0.02 peak aortic root contrast attenuation +9.1. Conclusion: This novel method for cardiac output estimation by CTCA appears feasible. The CT physiologic parameters using the timing test-bolus data moderately correlated with echocardiographic assessment of cardiac output. The calculation of cardiac output adds important hemodynamic data to anatomic information provided by CTCA, and further development of this method may preserve assessment of left ventricular performance in prospective triggering.

show abstract

Reliability of reporting left ventricular systolic function by echocardiography: A systematic review of 3 methods

Cited by 233 publications

References 77 publications

Evolution of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Evolution of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction After Acute Myocardial Infarction

American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation/Heart Rhythm Society Scientific Statement on Noninvasive Risk Stratification Techniques for Identifying Patients at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death

Validation of a Novel Method for Cardiac Output Estimation by CT Coronary Angiography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About