Unit of Cardiovascular Imaging, Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliera San G. Moscati di Rilevanza Nazionale e di Alta Specialità, Avellino, Italy.
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 15;112(6):889-94. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.019. Epub 2013 Jun 7.
Calculation of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) by Doppler stroke volume and end-diastolic volume (EDV) derived from LV diastolic diameter (LVIDD) could be reliable and feasible in clinical practice. In subjects with a wide range of LV volumes and EFs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate the accuracy of common formulas (Teichholz and Z method) to estimate EDV from LVIDD (EDVTeich; EDVZ) versus volumetric EDV. The accuracy of simplified Doppler-EF was tested in a separate study sample versus real-time 3-dimensional (RT3D) echocardiography and versus bidimensional Simpson's method. A new equation to calculate EDV from LVIDD was derived using MRI and tested in the RT3D echo samples. Feasibility of Doppler-EF was tested in a third sample of consecutive inpatients and outpatients. In the MRI sample, EDVTeich was greater whereas EDVZ was smaller than volumetric EDV (both p <0.01); however, a quadratic equation estimated EDV from LVIDD with accuracy (R² = 0.97). In the echocardiographic sample, independent of severe segmental wall motion abnormalities, EDVTeich was greater whereas EDV using Simpson's method was smaller than RT3D EDV (all p <0.05); Doppler-EF using EDVTeich was lower compared with EF by Simpson's rule or by RT3D-EF (all p <0.01). However, RT3D-EF showed no differences compared with Doppler-EF when EDV was calculated by the novel MRI-derived equation. Feasibility was 95% for Doppler-EF and 72% using Simpson's method. In conclusion, equations estimating EDV from LVIDD affect the accuracy of simplified Doppler-EF. However, Doppler-based EF may be accurate and feasible even in the presence of LV contractile asynergy.
通过多普勒测量的stroke volume 和从左心室舒张末期直径 (LVIDD) 计算的左心室射血分数 (EF) 可能在临床实践中是可靠且可行的。在左心室容积和 EF 范围广泛的受试者中,磁共振成像 (MRI) 用于评估从 LVIDD 估计 EDV 的常用公式 (Teichholz 和 Z 法) (EDVTeich; EDVZ) 与容积 EDV 的准确性。在另一项研究样本中,测试了简化多普勒 EF 的准确性,与实时 3 维 (RT3D) 超声心动图和二维 Simpson 法进行了比较。使用 MRI 推导了一种从 LVIDD 计算 EDV 的新方程,并在 RT3D 超声心动图样本中进行了测试。在连续住院和门诊患者的第三个样本中测试了多普勒 EF 的可行性。在 MRI 样本中,EDVTeich 大于而 EDVZ 小于容积 EDV(均 p <0.01);然而,二次方程可以从 LVIDD 准确估计 EDV(R² = 0.97)。在超声心动图样本中,独立于严重节段性壁运动异常,EDVTeich 大于而 Simpson 法计算的 EDV 小于 RT3D EDV(均 p <0.05);使用 EDVTeich 的多普勒 EF 低于 Simpson 规则或 RT3D-EF 的 EF(均 p <0.01)。然而,当使用新的 MRI 衍生方程计算 EDV 时,RT3D-EF 与多普勒 EF 之间没有差异。多普勒 EF 的可行性为 95%,而 Simpson 法为 72%。总之,从 LVIDD 估计 EDV 的方程会影响简化多普勒 EF 的准确性。然而,即使存在 LV 收缩不同步,基于多普勒的 EF 也可能是准确且可行的。