Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Autor:	Abazid RM; Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Imaging, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center Qassim, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Abohamr SI; Department of Cardiology, Tanta University Hospital, Tanta, Egypt.; Department of Cardiology, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., Smettei OA; Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Imaging, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center Qassim, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Qasem MS; Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Imaging, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center Qassim, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Suresh AR; Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Imaging, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center Qassim, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Al Harbi MF; Qassim College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Aljaber AN; Qassim College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Al Motairy AA; Qassim College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Albiela DE; Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Imaging, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center Qassim, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraydah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia., Almutairi BM; Department of Cardiology, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., Sakr H; Department of Cardiology, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Avicenna journal of medicine [Avicenna J Med] 2018 Apr-Jun; Vol. 8 (2), pp. 41-45.
DOI:	10.4103/ajm.AJM_209_17
Abstrakt:	Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare three different echocardiographic methods commonly used in the assessment of left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF). Methods: All patients underwent full echocardiography including LVEF assessed using M-mode, automated EF (Auto-EF), and visual estimation by two readers. Results: We enrolled 268 patients. Auto-EF measurement was feasible in 240 (89.5%) patients. The averaged LVEF was (52% ± 12) with the visual assessment, (51% ± 11) with Auto-EF and (57% ± 13) with M-mode. Using Bland-Altman analysis, we found that the difference between the mean visual and the Auto-EF was not significant (-0.3% [-0.5803-0.0053], P = 0.054). However, the mean EF was significantly different when comparing visual versus M-mode and Auto-EF versus M-mode with the mean differences: (-2.4365 [-2.9946--1.8783], P < 0.0001) and (-2.1490 [-2.7348--1.5631], P < 0.0001) respectively. Inter-observer variability analysis of the visual EF assessment between the two readers showed that intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.953, (95% confidence interval: 0.939-0.965, P < 0.0001), with excellent correlation between the two readers: R = 0.911, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The two-dimensional echocardiographic methods using Biplane Auto-EF or visual assessment were significantly comparable, whereas M-mode results in an overestimation of the LVEF. Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu