Title |
Assessment of LVEF using a new 16-segment wall motion score in echocardiography
|
---|---|
Published in |
Echo Research & Practice, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.1530/erp-18-0006 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Real Lebeau, Karim Serri, Maria Di Lorenzo, Claude Sauvé, Hoai Viet Van Le, Vicky Soulières, Malak El-Rayes, Maude Pagé, Chimène Zaïani, Jérôme Garot, Frédéric Poulin |
Abstract |
Simpson biplane method and 3D by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), radionuclide angiography (RNA) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are the most accepted techniques for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment. Wall motion score index (WMSI) by TTE is an accepted complement. However, the conversion from WMSI to LVEF is obtained through a regression equation, which may limit its use. In this retrospective study, we aimed to validate a new method to derive LVEF from the wall motion score in 95 patients. The new score consisted of attributing a segmental EF to each LV segment based on the wall motion score and averaging all 16 segmental EF into a global LVEF. This segmental EF score was calculated on TTE in 95 patients, and RNA was used as the reference LVEF method. LVEF using the new segmental EF 15-40-65 score on TTE was compared to the reference methods using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. The median LVEF was 45% (interquartile range 32-53%; range from 15 to 65%). Our new segmental EF 15-40-65 score derived on TTE correlated strongly with RNA-LVEF (r = 0.97). Overall, the new score resulted in good agreement of LVEF compared to RNA (mean bias 0.61%). The standard deviations (s.d.s) of the distributions of inter-method difference for the comparison of the new score with RNA were 6.2%, indicating good precision. LVEF assessment using segmental EF derived from the wall motion score applied to each of the 16 LV segments has excellent correlation and agreement with a reference method. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 20% |
Australia | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
Researcher | 6 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
Other | 8 | 18% |
Unknown | 12 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 49% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Psychology | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 15 | 33% |