手持超声心动图与心脏磁共振在卒中量和左心室射血分数定量方面的比较

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Medical Ultrasound Pub Date : 2024-08-28 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.4103/jmu.jmu_52_23

Frederique Maria de Raat, Sjoerd Bouwmeester, R Arthur Bouwman, Patrick Houthuizen

{"title":"手持超声心动图与心脏磁共振在卒中量和左心室射血分数定量方面的比较","authors":"Frederique Maria de Raat, Sjoerd Bouwmeester, R Arthur Bouwman, Patrick Houthuizen","doi":"10.4103/jmu.jmu_52_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Reliable quantification of stroke volume (SV) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is essential for point-of-care assessment in hemodynamically compromised patients. Handheld echocardiography (HHE) equipment has entered the market a few years ago and is now available for clinical use. However, the performance of HHE for SV and LVEF quantification in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging as golden standard is yet unknown.Methods: Twenty volunteers were scanned with HHE, standard echocardiography (SE), and CMR. LVEF and SV were measured with each modality, and their accuracy and precision were evaluated.Results: Bias and limits of agreement (LOA) between HHE and CMR were -0.21% (-2.89: 2.48) and 11.24% (-15.79: 15.59) for LVEF and 29.85 ml (22.13: 37.57) and 32.34 ml (-15.01: 44.86) for SV, respectively. Bias and LOA between SE and CMR were -0.60% (-3.74:2.55) and 13.16% (-18.85:18.26) for LVEF and 32.08 ml (24.61:39.54) and 31.34 ml (-11.29:43.37) for SV, respectively.Conclusion: HHE versus CMR showed comparable accuracy and precision compared to SE versus CMR.","PeriodicalId":45466,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ultrasound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11414958/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between Handheld Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Stroke Volume and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Quantification.\",\"authors\":\"Frederique Maria de Raat, Sjoerd Bouwmeester, R Arthur Bouwman, Patrick Houthuizen\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmu.jmu_52_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Reliable quantification of stroke volume (SV) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is essential for point-of-care assessment in hemodynamically compromised patients. Handheld echocardiography (HHE) equipment has entered the market a few years ago and is now available for clinical use. However, the performance of HHE for SV and LVEF quantification in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging as golden standard is yet unknown.Methods: Twenty volunteers were scanned with HHE, standard echocardiography (SE), and CMR. LVEF and SV were measured with each modality, and their accuracy and precision were evaluated.Results: Bias and limits of agreement (LOA) between HHE and CMR were -0.21% (-2.89: 2.48) and 11.24% (-15.79: 15.59) for LVEF and 29.85 ml (22.13: 37.57) and 32.34 ml (-15.01: 44.86) for SV, respectively. Bias and LOA between SE and CMR were -0.60% (-3.74:2.55) and 13.16% (-18.85:18.26) for LVEF and 32.08 ml (24.61:39.54) and 31.34 ml (-11.29:43.37) for SV, respectively.Conclusion: HHE versus CMR showed comparable accuracy and precision compared to SE versus CMR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ultrasound\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11414958/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmu.jmu_52_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmu.jmu_52_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：可靠地量化每搏量（SV）和左心室射血分数（LVEF）对于血流动力学受损患者的护理点评估至关重要。手持式超声心动图（HHE）设备几年前已进入市场，现在已可用于临床。然而，与作为黄金标准的心脏磁共振成像（CMR）相比，HHE 在 SV 和 LVEF 定量方面的性能尚不清楚：方法：对 20 名志愿者进行 HHE、标准超声心动图 (SE) 和 CMR 扫描。方法：对 20 名志愿者进行 HHE 扫描、标准超声心动图扫描和 CMR 扫描，分别测量 LVEF 和 SV，并评估其准确性和精确性：HHE 和 CMR 测量 LVEF 的偏差和一致性界限（LOA）分别为 -0.21% (-2.89: 2.48) 和 11.24% (-15.79: 15.59)，测量 SV 的偏差和一致性界限（LOA）分别为 29.85 ml (22.13: 37.57) 和 32.34 ml (-15.01: 44.86)。SE和CMR的偏差和LOA分别为：LVEF为-0.60%（-3.74:2.55）和13.16%（-18.85:18.26），SV为32.08毫升（24.61:39.54）和31.34毫升（-11.29:43.37）：与SE和CMR相比，HHE和CMR的准确性和精确度相当。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Comparison between Handheld Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Stroke Volume and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Quantification.

Background: Reliable quantification of stroke volume (SV) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is essential for point-of-care assessment in hemodynamically compromised patients. Handheld echocardiography (HHE) equipment has entered the market a few years ago and is now available for clinical use. However, the performance of HHE for SV and LVEF quantification in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging as golden standard is yet unknown.

Methods: Twenty volunteers were scanned with HHE, standard echocardiography (SE), and CMR. LVEF and SV were measured with each modality, and their accuracy and precision were evaluated.

Results: Bias and limits of agreement (LOA) between HHE and CMR were -0.21% (-2.89: 2.48) and 11.24% (-15.79: 15.59) for LVEF and 29.85 ml (22.13: 37.57) and 32.34 ml (-15.01: 44.86) for SV, respectively. Bias and LOA between SE and CMR were -0.60% (-3.74:2.55) and 13.16% (-18.85:18.26) for LVEF and 32.08 ml (24.61:39.54) and 31.34 ml (-11.29:43.37) for SV, respectively.

Conclusion: HHE versus CMR showed comparable accuracy and precision compared to SE versus CMR.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Medical Ultrasound RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

9.10%

发文量

审稿时长

10 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Medical Ultrasound is the peer-reviewed publication of the Asian Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, and the Chinese Taipei Society of Ultrasound in Medicine. Its aim is to promote clinical and scientific research in ultrasonography, and to serve as a channel of communication among sonologists, sonographers, and medical ultrasound physicians in the Asia-Pacific region and wider international community. The Journal invites original contributions relating to the clinical and laboratory investigations and applications of ultrasonography.