Suneet Bhansali, Ella Tokar, Sunil Saharan, Ramzi Khalil, Puneet Bhatla
{"title":"通过二维超声心动图评估儿童左心室功能和容积:与心脏磁共振成像的相关性。","authors":"Suneet Bhansali, Ella Tokar, Sunil Saharan, Ramzi Khalil, Puneet Bhatla","doi":"10.4103/apc.apc_199_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) is widely used in the pediatric population. However, there is no consensus on the most accurate method of quantifying ventricular volumes and systolic function.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study is to compare two commonly used echocardiographic methods for the evaluation of LV volume and quantification of EF, the five-sixth area-length (5/6 AL) and the modified biplane Simpson (BS), to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CMR studies were paired with echocardiograms and retrospectively analyzed in children 18 years of age and younger. Studies performed more than 3 months between modalities, patients with congenital heart disease, and patients who had changes in medication regimen between corresponding CMR and echocardiograms were excluded. LV volumes and EF were calculated using the 5/6 AL and BS methods and compared to volumes and EF measured on corresponding CMR studies. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on LV function, pathology, and weight.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 53 CMR and corresponding echocardiogram studies (23 studies for myocarditis and 30 studies for cardiomyopathy) in 46 patients. LVEF derived by both echocardiographic methods showed a good correlation to CMR (5/6 AL <i>r</i> = 0.85 and BS <i>r</i> = 0.82). However, both echocardiographic methods overestimated LVEF and underestimated LV volumes when compared to CMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Left ventricular volumes and EF, as measured by echocardiography, correlate well with CMR measurements. Echocardiography underestimates LV systolic and diastolic volumes and overestimates LVEF. While echocardiography is a good surrogate for estimating LVEF, CMR should be considered in patients for whom accurate measurements are needed for critical clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":8026,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pediatric Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11198934/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of left ventricular function and volume by two-dimensional echocardiography in a pediatric population: Correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Suneet Bhansali, Ella Tokar, Sunil Saharan, Ramzi Khalil, Puneet Bhatla\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/apc.apc_199_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) is widely used in the pediatric population. However, there is no consensus on the most accurate method of quantifying ventricular volumes and systolic function.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study is to compare two commonly used echocardiographic methods for the evaluation of LV volume and quantification of EF, the five-sixth area-length (5/6 AL) and the modified biplane Simpson (BS), to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CMR studies were paired with echocardiograms and retrospectively analyzed in children 18 years of age and younger. Studies performed more than 3 months between modalities, patients with congenital heart disease, and patients who had changes in medication regimen between corresponding CMR and echocardiograms were excluded. LV volumes and EF were calculated using the 5/6 AL and BS methods and compared to volumes and EF measured on corresponding CMR studies. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on LV function, pathology, and weight.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 53 CMR and corresponding echocardiogram studies (23 studies for myocarditis and 30 studies for cardiomyopathy) in 46 patients. LVEF derived by both echocardiographic methods showed a good correlation to CMR (5/6 AL <i>r</i> = 0.85 and BS <i>r</i> = 0.82). However, both echocardiographic methods overestimated LVEF and underestimated LV volumes when compared to CMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Left ventricular volumes and EF, as measured by echocardiography, correlate well with CMR measurements. Echocardiography underestimates LV systolic and diastolic volumes and overestimates LVEF. While echocardiography is a good surrogate for estimating LVEF, CMR should be considered in patients for whom accurate measurements are needed for critical clinical decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Pediatric Cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11198934/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Pediatric Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/apc.apc_199_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pediatric Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/apc.apc_199_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:左心室容积和射血分数(EF)的超声心动图量化在儿科人群中被广泛使用。目的:本研究的目的是比较两种常用的超声心动图评估左心室容积和射血分数的方法(5/6 面积长度法(5/6 AL)和改良双平面辛普森法(BS))与儿童心脏磁共振成像(CMR):将 CMR 研究与超声心动图配对,并对 18 岁及以下儿童进行回顾性分析。排除了间隔时间超过 3 个月的研究、患有先天性心脏病的患者以及在相应 CMR 和超声心动图之间更换过药物治疗方案的患者。采用 5/6 AL 和 BS 方法计算左心室容积和 EF,并与相应 CMR 研究中测量的容积和 EF 进行比较。根据左心室功能、病理和体重进行亚组分析:我们回顾性分析了 46 名患者的 53 次 CMR 和相应的超声心动图检查(23 次为心肌炎检查,30 次为心肌病检查)。两种超声心动图方法得出的 LVEF 与 CMR 的相关性良好(5/6 AL r = 0.85,BS r = 0.82)。然而,与CMR相比,两种超声心动图方法都高估了LVEF,低估了左心室容积:结论:超声心动图测量的左心室容积和EF与CMR测量结果有很好的相关性。超声心动图低估了左心室收缩和舒张容积,高估了左心室容积。虽然超声心动图是估算 LVEF 的良好替代方法,但对于需要精确测量以做出关键临床决策的患者,应考虑使用 CMR。
Evaluation of left ventricular function and volume by two-dimensional echocardiography in a pediatric population: Correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Background: Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) is widely used in the pediatric population. However, there is no consensus on the most accurate method of quantifying ventricular volumes and systolic function.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare two commonly used echocardiographic methods for the evaluation of LV volume and quantification of EF, the five-sixth area-length (5/6 AL) and the modified biplane Simpson (BS), to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in children.
Methods: CMR studies were paired with echocardiograms and retrospectively analyzed in children 18 years of age and younger. Studies performed more than 3 months between modalities, patients with congenital heart disease, and patients who had changes in medication regimen between corresponding CMR and echocardiograms were excluded. LV volumes and EF were calculated using the 5/6 AL and BS methods and compared to volumes and EF measured on corresponding CMR studies. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on LV function, pathology, and weight.
Results: We retrospectively analyzed 53 CMR and corresponding echocardiogram studies (23 studies for myocarditis and 30 studies for cardiomyopathy) in 46 patients. LVEF derived by both echocardiographic methods showed a good correlation to CMR (5/6 AL r = 0.85 and BS r = 0.82). However, both echocardiographic methods overestimated LVEF and underestimated LV volumes when compared to CMR.
Conclusion: Left ventricular volumes and EF, as measured by echocardiography, correlate well with CMR measurements. Echocardiography underestimates LV systolic and diastolic volumes and overestimates LVEF. While echocardiography is a good surrogate for estimating LVEF, CMR should be considered in patients for whom accurate measurements are needed for critical clinical decision-making.