6 Comparing echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance measures of ejection fraction: implications for HFMRF research (2024)

6 Comparing echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance measures of ejection fraction: implications for HFMRF research (1)

You are here

Article Text

Article menu

PDF

British Cardiovascular Imaging Meeting 2018

A Joint Meeting of the British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging/British Society of Cardiovascular CT, British Society of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and British Nuclear Cardiac Society

2nd to 4th May 2018

Edinburgh

British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging/British Society of Cardiovascular CT (BSCI/BSCCT) Young Investigator Award Abstracts

Oral presentations

6 Comparing echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance measures of ejection fraction: implications for HFMRF research

  1. Rupert Simpson1,
  2. Daniel Bromage1,
  3. Luke Dancy1,
  4. Adam McDiarmid2,
  5. Mark Monaghan1,
  6. Theresa McDonagh1,
  7. Dan Sado1
  1. 1King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  2. 2Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Abstract

Introduction Cardiovascular MRI (CMR) is the gold standard for calculation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Echocardiography (echo) has been shown to consistently underestimate LVEF when compared to CMR. However, this has not been demonstrated for different categories of LVEF.

Methods This was an observational study of patients with both CMR and echo studies, between May and October 2017, identified via local UK National Heart Failure Audit data or CMR records. Patients were excluded if the imaging tests were performed >60 days apart or if they had a diagnosis that would predictably change between tests. LVEF categories were defined according to ESC guidelines.

Results 103 cases with both imaging modalities were included. Overall, echo underestimated LVEF compared to CMR (CMR 46.5%±1.8%, echo 37.33%±1.4%, p<0.0001). There was no significant variation in discrepancy over time (r2 0.04). Subgroup analysis according to echo technique (Simpson’s vs 3D) and underlying diagnosis (where at least n=10 available) did not alter the overall trend. Importantly, echo underestimated LVEF compared to CMR for all categories of LVEF (<40% CMR 34.0±1.7% vs echo 26.1%±1.0%, p<0.0001; 40%–50% CMR 60.1±2.8% vs 40%–50% echo 45.7%±0.7%, p<0.0001;>50% CMR 63.7±2.1% vs echo 56.4%±0.9%, p=0.0019). Using echo as the default measurement, CMR LVEF assessment would result in 36 patients (35.0%) being reclassified.

Conclusion Echo underestimates LVEF compared to CMR across all LVEF subgroups and diagnoses, regardless of technique used. This is of interest in HFmrEF trials where, if echo is used for LVEF assessment, many included patients may have normal systolic function.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Read the full text or download the PDF:

    Read the full text or download the PDF:

    6 Comparing echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance measures of ejection fraction: implications for HFMRF research (2024)
    Top Articles
    Latest Posts
    Article information

    Author: Catherine Tremblay

    Last Updated:

    Views: 6394

    Rating: 4.7 / 5 (47 voted)

    Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

    Author information

    Name: Catherine Tremblay

    Birthday: 1999-09-23

    Address: Suite 461 73643 Sherril Loaf, Dickinsonland, AZ 47941-2379

    Phone: +2678139151039

    Job: International Administration Supervisor

    Hobby: Dowsing, Snowboarding, Rowing, Beekeeping, Calligraphy, Shooting, Air sports

    Introduction: My name is Catherine Tremblay, I am a precious, perfect, tasty, enthusiastic, inexpensive, vast, kind person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.