Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2021
Left ventricular ejection fraction and Global Longitudinal Strain variability between methodology and experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kouris Nikos T, Kostopoulos Vassilis S, Psarrou Georgia A, Kostakou Peggy M, Tzavara Chara, Olympios Christoforos D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Although ejection fraction (EF) is the cornerstone of the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, its measurement faces a number of challenges related to image quality, assumptions of LV geometry, and expertise. The aim of this study was to test the inter-observer variability of EF and GLS measurement in patients with a broad spectrum of LV function, between physicians and investigators (Inv) with different levels of expertise.
METHODS: In 122 patients, EF and GLS were measured by 4 Inv blinded to each other with different level of experience in echocardiography; EF was measured using 3 methods: visual assessment, biplane Simpson's method, and auto-EF method. GLS was measured from the 3 apical views. A significant difference for LVEF and for LVGLS was considered to be >10 and >2 absolute values, respectively.
RESULTS: Intra-observer agreement was excellent for visually assessed EF (ICC = 0.87, P < .001) and GLS (ICC = 0.82, P < .001) and good for EF measured by Simpson's method (ICC = 0.70, P < .001) and auto-EF (ICC = 0.72, P < .001). Intra-observer and inter-observer agreements were excellent for GLS with ICCs above 0.8. GLS discordance between the 4 Inv was not significant. Discordance in EF and GLS measurements among the Inv was not related to image quality or wall motion abnormalities.
CONCLUSION: Although EF has proved its prognostic value in various cardiovascular entities, GLS seems to be more reliable for serial assessment of LV function, demonstrating lower intra- and inter-observer variability, even by different physicians with variant level of expertise.
METHODS: In 122 patients, EF and GLS were measured by 4 Inv blinded to each other with different level of experience in echocardiography; EF was measured using 3 methods: visual assessment, biplane Simpson's method, and auto-EF method. GLS was measured from the 3 apical views. A significant difference for LVEF and for LVGLS was considered to be >10 and >2 absolute values, respectively.
RESULTS: Intra-observer agreement was excellent for visually assessed EF (ICC = 0.87, P < .001) and GLS (ICC = 0.82, P < .001) and good for EF measured by Simpson's method (ICC = 0.70, P < .001) and auto-EF (ICC = 0.72, P < .001). Intra-observer and inter-observer agreements were excellent for GLS with ICCs above 0.8. GLS discordance between the 4 Inv was not significant. Discordance in EF and GLS measurements among the Inv was not related to image quality or wall motion abnormalities.
CONCLUSION: Although EF has proved its prognostic value in various cardiovascular entities, GLS seems to be more reliable for serial assessment of LV function, demonstrating lower intra- and inter-observer variability, even by different physicians with variant level of expertise.