Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of performing two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) eligibility. Methods: A pro...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Călin Schiau, Daniel-Corneliu Leucuța, Sorin Marian Dudea, Simona Manole
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	cardiovascular magnetic resonance echocardiography ejection fraction implantable cardioverter defibrillator nonischemic cardiomyopathy Biology (General) QH301-705.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f1f5653d5b384009b45dc0467c07d4c0
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f1f5653d5b384009b45dc0467c07d4c0
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f1f5653d5b384009b45dc0467c07d4c02021-11-25T16:47:04ZMagnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility10.3390/biology101111082079-7737https://doaj.org/article/f1f5653d5b384009b45dc0467c07d4c02021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/11/1108https://doaj.org/toc/2079-7737Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of performing two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) eligibility. Methods: A prospective cohort of 166 consecutive patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) was designed to compare transthoracic 2DE and CMR imaging. Results: Echocardiography measurements have important differences and large limits of agreement compared to CMR, especially when assessing ventricle volumes, and smaller but relevant differences when assessing LVEF. The agreement between CMR and 2DE regarding the identification of subjects with EF <= 35, respectively <= 30, and thus eligible for an ICD measured by Cohen’s Kappa was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68–0.88), <i>p</i> < 0.001, respectively 0.65 (95% CI: 0.52–0.78), <i>p</i> < 0.001. The disagreement represented 7.9%/11.3% of the subjects who had EF < 35%/< 30% as observed by CMR, who would have been classified as eligible for an ICD, resulting in an additional need to use an ICD. Moreover, 2.6%/3.3% would have been deemed eligible by echocardiography for an ICD. Conclusions: These measurement problems result in incorrect assignments of eligibility that may have serious implications on the quality of life and the prevention of death events for patients assessed for eligibility of an ICD.Călin SchiauDaniel-Corneliu LeucuțaSorin Marian DudeaSimona ManoleMDPI AGarticlecardiovascular magnetic resonanceechocardiographyejection fractionimplantable cardioverter defibrillatornonischemic cardiomyopathyBiology (General)QH301-705.5ENBiology, Vol 10, Iss 1108, p 1108 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	cardiovascular magnetic resonance echocardiography ejection fraction implantable cardioverter defibrillator nonischemic cardiomyopathy Biology (General) QH301-705.5
spellingShingle	cardiovascular magnetic resonance echocardiography ejection fraction implantable cardioverter defibrillator nonischemic cardiomyopathy Biology (General) QH301-705.5 Călin Schiau Daniel-Corneliu Leucuța Sorin Marian Dudea Simona Manole Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility
description	Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of performing two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) eligibility. Methods: A prospective cohort of 166 consecutive patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) was designed to compare transthoracic 2DE and CMR imaging. Results: Echocardiography measurements have important differences and large limits of agreement compared to CMR, especially when assessing ventricle volumes, and smaller but relevant differences when assessing LVEF. The agreement between CMR and 2DE regarding the identification of subjects with EF <= 35, respectively <= 30, and thus eligible for an ICD measured by Cohen’s Kappa was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68–0.88), <i>p</i> < 0.001, respectively 0.65 (95% CI: 0.52–0.78), <i>p</i> < 0.001. The disagreement represented 7.9%/11.3% of the subjects who had EF < 35%/< 30% as observed by CMR, who would have been classified as eligible for an ICD, resulting in an additional need to use an ICD. Moreover, 2.6%/3.3% would have been deemed eligible by echocardiography for an ICD. Conclusions: These measurement problems result in incorrect assignments of eligibility that may have serious implications on the quality of life and the prevention of death events for patients assessed for eligibility of an ICD.
format	article
author	Călin Schiau Daniel-Corneliu Leucuța Sorin Marian Dudea Simona Manole
author_facet	Călin Schiau Daniel-Corneliu Leucuța Sorin Marian Dudea Simona Manole
author_sort	Călin Schiau
title	Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility
title_short	Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility
title_full	Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility
title_fullStr	Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility
title_full_unstemmed	Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility
title_sort	magnetic resonance assessment of ejection fraction versus echocardiography for cardioverter-defibrillator implantation eligibility
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/f1f5653d5b384009b45dc0467c07d4c0
work_keys_str_mv	AT calinschiau magneticresonanceassessmentofejectionfractionversusechocardiographyforcardioverterdefibrillatorimplantationeligibility AT danielcorneliuleucuta magneticresonanceassessmentofejectionfractionversusechocardiographyforcardioverterdefibrillatorimplantationeligibility AT sorinmariandudea magneticresonanceassessmentofejectionfractionversusechocardiographyforcardioverterdefibrillatorimplantationeligibility AT simonamanole magneticresonanceassessmentofejectionfractionversusechocardiographyforcardioverterdefibrillatorimplantationeligibility
_version_	1718412992815562752

Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Ejection Fraction Versus Echocardiography for Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Eligibility

Ejemplares similares