Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction
Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare three different echocardiographic methods commonly used in the assessment of left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF). Methods: All patients underwent full echocardiography including LVEF assessed using M-mode, automated EF (Auto-EF), and visual es...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/8d2242f8add642dd9763ce816687a1a8 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:8d2242f8add642dd9763ce816687a1a8 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:8d2242f8add642dd9763ce816687a1a82021-12-02T16:27:07ZVisual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction2231-07702249-446410.4103/ajm.AJM_209_17https://doaj.org/article/8d2242f8add642dd9763ce816687a1a82018-04-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.4103/ajm.AJM_209_17https://doaj.org/toc/2231-0770https://doaj.org/toc/2249-4464Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare three different echocardiographic methods commonly used in the assessment of left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF). Methods: All patients underwent full echocardiography including LVEF assessed using M-mode, automated EF (Auto-EF), and visual estimation by two readers. Results: We enrolled 268 patients. Auto-EF measurement was feasible in 240 (89.5%) patients. The averaged LVEF was (52% ± 12) with the visual assessment, (51% ± 11) with Auto-EF and (57% ± 13) with M-mode. Using Bland-Altman analysis, we found that the difference between the mean visual and the Auto-EF was not significant (−0.3% [−0.5803–0.0053], P = 0.054). However, the mean EF was significantly different when comparing visual versus M-mode and Auto-EF versus M-mode with the mean differences: (−2.4365 [−2.9946–−1.8783], P < 0.0001) and (−2.1490 [−2.7348–−1.5631], P < 0.0001) respectively. Inter-observer variability analysis of the visual EF assessment between the two readers showed that intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.953, (95% confidence interval: 0.939–0.965, P < 0.0001), with excellent correlation between the two readers: R = 0.911, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The two-dimensional echocardiographic methods using Biplane Auto-EF or visual assessment were significantly comparable, whereas M-mode results in an overestimation of the LVEF.Rami Mahmood AbazidSamah I AbohamrOsama A SmetteiMohammed S QasemAnnie R SureshMohammad F Al HarbAbdulrahman N AljaberAthary A Al MotairyDiana E AlbielaBashayer Muhil AlmutairiHaitham SakrThieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.articleauto-ejection fractionejection fractionm-modetissue trackingvisual assessmentMedicineRENAvicenna Journal of Medicine, Vol 8, Iss 02, Pp 41-45 (2018) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
auto-ejection fraction ejection fraction m-mode tissue tracking visual assessment Medicine R |
| spellingShingle |
auto-ejection fraction ejection fraction m-mode tissue tracking visual assessment Medicine R Rami Mahmood Abazid Samah I Abohamr Osama A Smettei Mohammed S Qasem Annie R Suresh Mohammad F Al Harb Abdulrahman N Aljaber Athary A Al Motairy Diana E Albiela Bashayer Muhil Almutairi Haitham Sakr Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| description |
Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare three different echocardiographic methods commonly used in the assessment of left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF). Methods: All patients underwent full echocardiography including LVEF assessed using M-mode, automated EF (Auto-EF), and visual estimation by two readers. Results: We enrolled 268 patients. Auto-EF measurement was feasible in 240 (89.5%) patients. The averaged LVEF was (52% ± 12) with the visual assessment, (51% ± 11) with Auto-EF and (57% ± 13) with M-mode. Using Bland-Altman analysis, we found that the difference between the mean visual and the Auto-EF was not significant (−0.3% [−0.5803–0.0053], P = 0.054). However, the mean EF was significantly different when comparing visual versus M-mode and Auto-EF versus M-mode with the mean differences: (−2.4365 [−2.9946–−1.8783], P < 0.0001) and (−2.1490 [−2.7348–−1.5631], P < 0.0001) respectively. Inter-observer variability analysis of the visual EF assessment between the two readers showed that intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.953, (95% confidence interval: 0.939–0.965, P < 0.0001), with excellent correlation between the two readers: R = 0.911, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The two-dimensional echocardiographic methods using Biplane Auto-EF or visual assessment were significantly comparable, whereas M-mode results in an overestimation of the LVEF. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Rami Mahmood Abazid Samah I Abohamr Osama A Smettei Mohammed S Qasem Annie R Suresh Mohammad F Al Harb Abdulrahman N Aljaber Athary A Al Motairy Diana E Albiela Bashayer Muhil Almutairi Haitham Sakr |
| author_facet |
Rami Mahmood Abazid Samah I Abohamr Osama A Smettei Mohammed S Qasem Annie R Suresh Mohammad F Al Harb Abdulrahman N Aljaber Athary A Al Motairy Diana E Albiela Bashayer Muhil Almutairi Haitham Sakr |
| author_sort |
Rami Mahmood Abazid |
| title |
Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| title_short |
Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| title_full |
Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| title_fullStr |
Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| title_sort |
visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction |
| publisher |
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/8d2242f8add642dd9763ce816687a1a8 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT ramimahmoodabazid visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT samahiabohamr visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT osamaasmettei visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT mohammedsqasem visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT anniersuresh visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT mohammadfalharb visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT abdulrahmannaljaber visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT atharyaalmotairy visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT dianaealbiela visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT bashayermuhilalmutairi visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction AT haithamsakr visualversusfullyautomatedassessmentofleftventricularejectionfraction |
| _version_ |
1718384003538485248 |