General Hospital of Elefsina "Thriassio", Athens, Greece.
Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Echocardiography. 2021 Apr;38(4):582-589. doi: 10.1111/echo.15025. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
Although ejection fraction (EF) is the cornerstone of the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, its measurement faces a number of challenges related to image quality, assumptions of LV geometry, and expertise. The aim of this study was to test the inter-observer variability of EF and GLS measurement in patients with a broad spectrum of LV function, between physicians and investigators (Inv) with different levels of expertise.
In 122 patients, EF and GLS were measured by 4 Inv blinded to each other with different level of experience in echocardiography; EF was measured using 3 methods: visual assessment, biplane Simpson's method, and auto-EF method. GLS was measured from the 3 apical views. A significant difference for LVEF and for LVGLS was considered to be >10 and >2 absolute values, respectively.
Intra-observer agreement was excellent for visually assessed EF (ICC = 0.87, P < .001) and GLS (ICC = 0.82, P < .001) and good for EF measured by Simpson's method (ICC = 0.70, P < .001) and auto-EF (ICC = 0.72, P < .001). Intra-observer and inter-observer agreements were excellent for GLS with ICCs above 0.8. GLS discordance between the 4 Inv was not significant. Discordance in EF and GLS measurements among the Inv was not related to image quality or wall motion abnormalities.
Although EF has proved its prognostic value in various cardiovascular entities, GLS seems to be more reliable for serial assessment of LV function, demonstrating lower intra- and inter-observer variability, even by different physicians with variant level of expertise.
尽管射血分数(EF)是评估左心室(LV)收缩功能的基石,但它的测量面临着许多与图像质量、LV 几何形状假设和专业知识相关的挑战。本研究的目的是测试在 LV 功能广泛的患者中,不同经验水平的医师和研究者(Inv)之间 EF 和 GLS 测量的观察者间变异性。
在 122 名患者中,4 名 Inv 彼此之间相互盲法,他们的超声心动图经验水平不同,测量 EF 和 GLS;EF 通过 3 种方法进行测量:视觉评估、双平面 Simpson 法和自动 EF 法。GLS 从 3 个心尖视图进行测量。LVEF 和 LVGLS 的显著差异被认为分别大于 10 和 2 个绝对值。
EF 的观察者内一致性非常好(ICC=0.87,P<.001)和 GLS(ICC=0.82,P<.001),Simpson 法测量的 EF(ICC=0.70,P<.001)和自动 EF(ICC=0.72,P<.001)也很好。GLS 的观察者内和观察者间一致性非常好,ICC 均高于 0.8。4 名 Inv 之间的 GLS 差异无统计学意义。Inv 之间 EF 和 GLS 测量的差异与图像质量或壁运动异常无关。
尽管 EF 已在各种心血管实体中证明了其预后价值,但 GLS 似乎更可靠,可用于 LV 功能的连续评估,其观察者内和观察者间变异性较低,即使是具有不同专业水平的不同医生也如此。