Kandels Joscha, Denk Verena, Pedersen Maria Weinkouff, Kragholm Kristian Hay, Søgaard Peter, Tayal Bhupendar, Marshall Robert Percy, Denecke Timm, Lindgren Filip Lyng, Hagendorff Andreas, Stöbe Stephan
Department of Cardiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2024 Aug 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02504-4.
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) is considered the gold standard for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. However, discrepancies have been reported in the literature between LV volumes assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cMRI. The objective of this study was to analyze the differences in LV volumes between different echocardiographic techniques and cMRI.
In 64 male athletes (21.1 ± 4.9 years), LV volumes were measured by TTE using the following methods: Doppler echocardiography, anatomical M-Mode, biplane/triplane planimetry and 3D volumetry. In addition, LV end-diastolic (LVEDV), end-systolic (LVESV), and stroke volumes (LVSV) were assessed in 11 athletes by both TTE and cMRI. There was no significant difference between LVEDV and LVESV determined by biplane/triplane planimetry and 3D volumetry. LVEDV and LVESV measured by M-Mode were significantly lower compared to 3D volumetry. LVSV determined by Doppler with 3D planimetry of LV outflow tract was significantly higher than 2D planimetry and 3D volumetry, whereas none of the planimetric or volumetric methods for determining LVSV differed significantly. There were no significant differences for LVEDV, LVESV, LVSV and LVEF between cMRI and TTE determined by biplane planimetry in the subgroup of 11 athletes.
The choice of echocardiographic method used has an impact on LVSV in athletes, so the LVSV should always be checked for plausibility. The same echocardiographic method should be used to assess LVSV at follow-ups to ensure good comparability. The data suggest that biplane LV planimetry by TTE is not inferior to cMRI.
心脏磁共振成像（cMRI）被认为是评估左心室（LV）收缩功能的金标准。然而，文献报道经胸超声心动图（TTE）评估的左心室容积与cMRI之间存在差异。本研究的目的是分析不同超声心动图技术与cMRI在左心室容积方面的差异。
对64名男性运动员（21.1±4.9岁）使用以下方法通过TTE测量左心室容积：多普勒超声心动图、解剖M型、双平面/三平面面积测量法和三维容积测量法。此外，对11名运动员同时采用TTE和cMRI评估左心室舒张末期容积（LVEDV）、收缩末期容积（LVESV）和每搏输出量（LVSV）。双平面/三平面面积测量法和三维容积测量法测定的LVEDV和LVESV之间无显著差异。与三维容积测量法相比，M型测量的LVEDV和LVESV显著更低。采用LV流出道三维面积测量法的多普勒测定的LVSV显著高于二维面积测量法和三维容积测量法，而测定LVSV的面积测量法或容积测量法之间均无显著差异。在11名运动员的亚组中，cMRI和双平面面积测量法测定的TTE在LVEDV、LVESV、LVSV和左心室射血分数（LVEF）方面无显著差异。
所采用的超声心动图方法的选择对运动员的LVSV有影响，因此应始终检查LVSV的合理性。随访时应采用相同的超声心动图方法评估LVSV，以确保良好的可比性。数据表明，TTE双平面左心室面积测量法并不逊色于cMRI。
