Wang Shitong, Wang Shuyu, Zhu Qing, Wang Yonghuai, Li Guangyuan, Kong Fanxin, Yang Jun, Ma Chunyan
Department of Cardiovascular Ultrasound, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Sep 23;8:709863. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.709863. eCollection 2021.
This study was conducted in order to determine the reference values for right ventricular (RV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) using three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) and to identify sources of variance through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review was preregistered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) (CRD42020211002). Relevant studies were identified by searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through October 12, 2020. Pooled reference values were calculated using the random-effects model weighted by inverse variance. Meta-regression analysis and Egger's test were used to determine the source of heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the reference values across different conditions. The search identified 25 studies of 2,165 subjects. The mean reference values were as follows: RV end-diastolic volume, 100.71 ml [95% confidence interval (CI), 90.92-110.51 ml); RV end-systolic volume, 44.19 ml (95% CI, 39.05-49.33 ml); RV end-diastolic volume indexed, 57.01 ml/m (95% CI, 51.93-62.08 ml/m); RV end-systolic volume indexed, 25.41 ml/m (95% CI, 22.58-28.24 ml/m); and RVEF, 56.20% (95% CI, 54.59-57.82%). The sex- and age-specific reference values were assessed according to the studies reporting the values of different sexes and age distributions, respectively. In addition, the vendor- and software-specific reference values were analyzed. The meta-regression analysis revealed that sex, frame rate, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and software packages were associated with variations in RV volumes ( < 0.05). Inter-vendor and inter-software discrepancies may explain the variability of RVEF. The reference values for RV volumes and RVEF using 3DE were assessed. The confounders that impacted the variability in RV volumes or RVEF contained the sex, frame rate, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, inter-vendor discrepancies, and inter-software discrepancies.
本研究旨在使用三维超声心动图(3DE)确定右心室(RV)容积和射血分数(EF)的参考值,并通过系统评价和荟萃分析确定变异来源。本系统评价已在国际系统评价前瞻性注册库(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/)(CRD42020211002)中预注册。通过检索截至2020年10月12日的PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库来识别相关研究。使用逆方差加权的随机效应模型计算合并参考值。采用Meta回归分析和Egger检验来确定异质性来源。进行亚组分析以评估不同条件下的参考值。检索共识别出25项涉及2165名受试者的研究。平均参考值如下:RV舒张末期容积,100.71 ml[95%置信区间(CI),90.92 - 110.51 ml];RV收缩末期容积,44.19 ml(95%CI,39.05 - 49.33 ml);RV舒张末期容积指数,57.01 ml/m²(95%CI,51.93 - 62.08 ml/m²);RV收缩末期容积指数,25.41 ml/m²(95%CI,22.58 - 28.24 ml/m²);以及RVEF,56.20%(95%CI,54.59 - 57.82%)。分别根据报告不同性别和年龄分布值的研究评估了性别和年龄特异性参考值。此外,还分析了不同设备厂商和软件的参考值。Meta回归分析显示,性别、帧率、肺动脉收缩压和软件包与RV容积的变异相关(P<0.05)。设备厂商间和软件间的差异可能解释了RVEF的变异性。评估了使用3DE时RV容积和RVEF的参考值。影响RV容积或RVEF变异性的混杂因素包括性别、帧率、肺动脉收缩压、设备厂商间差异和软件间差异。