Benyounes Nadia, Van Der Vynckt Clélie, Tibi Thierry, Iglesias Alexandra, Gout Olivier, Lang Sylvie, Salomon Laurence
Cardiology Unit, A. de Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France.
Alsacienne School, Paris, France.
Cardiol Res Pract. 2020 Feb 28;2020:8076582. doi: 10.1155/2020/8076582. eCollection 2020.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and end diastolic volume (EDV) are measured using Simpson's biplane (SB), 3-dimensional method (3DE), and speckle tracking (STE). Comparisons between methods in routine practice are limited. Our purpose was to compare and to determine the correlations between these three methods in clinical setting.
LVEF and EDV were measured by three methods in 474 consecutive patients and compared using multiple Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The correlations (R) between methods were calculated.
Median (IQR) LVEF_SB, LVEF_STE, and LVEF_3DE were 63.0% (60-69)%, 61% (57-65)%, and 62% (57-68)%. Median (IQR) EDV_SB, EDV_STE, and EDV_3DE were 85 ml (71-106) ml, 82 ml (69-100) ml, and 73 ml (59-89) ml. R between LVEF_SB and LVEF_3DE was 0.65 when echogenicity was good and 0.43 when poor. R for EDV_SB and EDV_3DE was 0.75 when echogenicity was good and 0.45 when poor. On BA analysis, biases were acceptable (<3.5% for LVEF) but limits of agreement (LOA) were large: 95% of the differences were between -15.4% and +18.8% for LVEF as evaluated by SB in comparison with 3DE, with a bias of 1.7%. In the comparison EDV_SB and EDV_3DE, the bias was 14 ml and the LOA were between -24 ml and +53 ml. On linear regressions, LVEF_3DE = 17.92 + 0.69 LVEF_SB and EDV_3DE = 18.94 + 0.63 EDV_SB.
The three methods were feasible and led to acceptable bias but large LOA. Although these methods are not interchangeable, our results allow 3DE value prediction from SB, the most commonly used method.
左心室射血分数（LVEF）和舒张末期容积（EDV）通过双平面辛普森法（SB）、三维方法（3DE）和斑点追踪法（STE）进行测量。常规实践中各方法之间的比较有限。我们的目的是在临床环境中比较并确定这三种方法之间的相关性。
对474例连续患者采用三种方法测量LVEF和EDV，并使用多个布兰德 - 奥特曼（BA）图进行比较。计算各方法之间的相关性（R）。
LVEF_SB、LVEF_STE和LVEF_3DE的中位数（四分位间距）分别为63.0%（60 - 69）%、61%（57 - 65）%和62%（57 - 68）%。EDV_SB、EDV_STE和EDV_3DE的中位数（四分位间距）分别为85 ml（71 - 106）ml、82 ml（69 - 100）ml和73 ml（59 - 89）ml。当回声良好时，LVEF_SB与LVEF_3DE之间的R为0.65，回声较差时为0.43。EDV_SB与EDV_3DE之间，回声良好时R为0.75，回声较差时为0.45。在BA分析中，偏差可接受（LVEF < 3.5%），但一致性界限（LOA）较大：与3DE相比，SB评估LVEF时，95%的差异在 - 15.4%至 + 18.8%之间，偏差为1.7%。在比较EDV_SB和EDV_3DE时，偏差为14 ml，LOA在 - 24 ml至 + 53 ml之间。在线性回归中，LVEF_3DE = 17.92 + 0.69LVEF_SB，EDV_3DE = 18.94 + 0.63EDV_SB。
这三种方法可行，偏差可接受，但LOA较大。尽管这些方法不可互换，但我们的结果允许根据最常用的方法SB预测3DE值。
