Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Volumes: It Depends on the Imaging Method. Issue 1 (26th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wood, Peter W.; Choy, Jonathan B.; Nanda, Navin C.; Becher, Harald
• Is Part Of: Echocardiography. Volume 31:Issue 1(2014)
• Page Start: 87
• Page End: 100
• Publication Date: 2013-11-26
• Subjects: Echocardiography -- Periodicals; Echocardiography -- Periodicals; 616.1207543
• DOI: 10.1111/echo.12331
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0742-2822

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="echo12331-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="echo12331-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background and Methods</title> <p>In order to provide guidance for using measurements of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (LVEF) from different echocardiographic methods a PubMed review was performed on studies that reported reference values in normal populations for two‐dimensional (2D ECHO) and three‐dimensional (3D ECHO) echocardiography, nuclear imaging, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). In addition all studies (2 multicenter, 16 single center) were reviewed, which included at least 30 patients, and the results compared of noncontrast and contrast 2D ECHO, and 3D ECHO with those of CMR.</p> </sec> <sec id="echo12331-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The lower limits for normal LVEF and the normal ranges for end‐diastolic (EDV) and end‐systolic (ESV) volumes were different in each method. Only minor differences in LVEF were found in studies comparing CMR and 2D contrast echocardiography or noncontrast 3D echocardiography. However, EDV and ESV measured with all echocardiographic methods were smaller and showed greater variability than those derived from CMR. Regarding agreement with CMR and reproducibility, all studies showed superiority of contrast 2D ECHO over noncontrast 2D ECHO and 3D ECHO over 2D ECHO. No final judgment can be made about the comparison between contrast 2D ECHO and noncontrast or contrast 3D ECHO.</p> </sec> <sec id="echo12331-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>Contrast 2D ECHO and noncontrast 3D ECHO show good reproducibility and good agreement with CMR measurements of LVEF. The agreement of volumes is worse. Further studies are required to assess the clinical value of contrast 3D ECHO as noncontrast 3D ECHO is only reliable in patients with good acoustic windows.</p> </sec> </abstract>