Joffe Samuel W, Ferrara Jarrod, Chalian Armen, Tighe Dennis A, Aurigemma Gerard P, Goldberg Robert J
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
Am Heart J. 2009 Sep;158(3):496-502. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.06.012. Epub 2009 Aug 4.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an important parameter in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. Previous studies comparing echocardiography and contrast left ventriculography (CVG) for the measurement of EF have shown considerable variation in results, yet, in clinical practice, EF measurements are used interchangeably. The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance between echocardiography and CVG for the determination of EF in routine clinical practice and to identify factors associated with variation in test results.
We reviewed the medical records of 5,385 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction between 1997 and 2005 as part of a community-based surveillance project. Of these, 741 patients had EF measurements recorded by both echocardiography and CVG during hospitalization.
While good correlation (r = 0.73) and no systematic bias were noted between the measurement of EF by echocardiogram compared to CVG, there was wide variation between the 2 methods for any given patient. In approximately one third of patients with acute myocardial infarction, the measurement of EF by echocardiography and CVG differed by >10 points, while in approximately 1 in 20 patients, EF measurements by echocardiography and CVG differed by >20 points. The number of days between tests to measure EF, level of EF, temporal order of EF testing, and patient-related factors made only a minor contribution to the variation in test results.
Our results demonstrate that, in routine clinical practice, EF determinations obtained by echocardiography and CVG may vary widely, with potentially important clinical implications.
左心室射血分数(EF)是冠心病患者诊断和治疗中的一个重要参数。以往比较超声心动图和对比剂左心室造影(CVG)测量EF的研究显示结果存在相当大的差异,然而在临床实践中,EF测量结果却可相互替代使用。本研究的目的是评估在常规临床实践中超声心动图和CVG测定EF的一致性,并确定与检测结果差异相关的因素。
作为一项基于社区的监测项目的一部分,我们回顾了1997年至2005年间因急性心肌梗死住院的5385例患者的病历。其中,741例患者在住院期间同时接受了超声心动图和CVG测量EF。
与CVG相比,超声心动图测量EF时虽有良好的相关性(r = 0.73)且无系统偏差,但对于任何给定患者,两种方法之间仍存在很大差异。在大约三分之一的急性心肌梗死患者中,超声心动图和CVG测量的EF相差>10个百分点,而在大约二十分之一的患者中,超声心动图和CVG测量的EF相差>20个百分点。测量EF的两次检测之间的天数、EF水平、EF检测的时间顺序以及患者相关因素对检测结果差异的影响很小。
我们的结果表明,在常规临床实践中,超声心动图和CVG获得的EF测定值可能差异很大,具有潜在的重要临床意义。