A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance.
To determine the accuracy of visual analysis of left ventricular (LV) function in comparison with the accepted quantitative gold standard method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cine CMR imaging was performed at 1.5 T on 44 patients with a range of ejection fractions (EF, 5-80%). Clinicians (n = 1...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2011
|
| _version_ | 1797052854964322304 |
|---|---|
| author | Holloway, C Edwards, L Rider, O Fast, A Clarke, K Francis, J Myerson, S Neubauer, S |
| author_facet | Holloway, C Edwards, L Rider, O Fast, A Clarke, K Francis, J Myerson, S Neubauer, S |
| author_sort | Holloway, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | To determine the accuracy of visual analysis of left ventricular (LV) function in comparison with the accepted quantitative gold standard method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cine CMR imaging was performed at 1.5 T on 44 patients with a range of ejection fractions (EF, 5-80%). Clinicians (n = 18) were asked to visually assess EF after sequentially being shown cine images of a four chamber (horizontal long axis; HLA), two chamber (vertical long axis; VLA) and a short axis stack (SAS) and results were compared to a commercially available analysis package. There were strong correlations between visual and quantitative assessment. However, the EF was underestimated in all categories (by 8.4% for HLA, 8.4% for HLA + VLA and 7.9% for HLA + VLA + SAS, P all < 0.01) and particularly underestimated in mild LV impairment (17.4%, P < 0.01), less so for moderate (4.9%) and not for severe impairment (1%). Assessing more than one view of the heart improved visual assessment of LV, EF, however, clinicians underestimated EF by 8.4% on average, with particular inaccuracy in those with mild dysfunction. Given the important clinical information provided by LV assessment, quantitative analysis is recommended for accurate assessment. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:36:32Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:0b70580c-78d1-4076-91ce-953be8501269 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:36:32Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:0b70580c-78d1-4076-91ce-953be85012692022-03-26T09:29:22ZA comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0b70580c-78d1-4076-91ce-953be8501269EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2011Holloway, CEdwards, LRider, OFast, AClarke, KFrancis, JMyerson, SNeubauer, STo determine the accuracy of visual analysis of left ventricular (LV) function in comparison with the accepted quantitative gold standard method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cine CMR imaging was performed at 1.5 T on 44 patients with a range of ejection fractions (EF, 5-80%). Clinicians (n = 18) were asked to visually assess EF after sequentially being shown cine images of a four chamber (horizontal long axis; HLA), two chamber (vertical long axis; VLA) and a short axis stack (SAS) and results were compared to a commercially available analysis package. There were strong correlations between visual and quantitative assessment. However, the EF was underestimated in all categories (by 8.4% for HLA, 8.4% for HLA + VLA and 7.9% for HLA + VLA + SAS, P all < 0.01) and particularly underestimated in mild LV impairment (17.4%, P < 0.01), less so for moderate (4.9%) and not for severe impairment (1%). Assessing more than one view of the heart improved visual assessment of LV, EF, however, clinicians underestimated EF by 8.4% on average, with particular inaccuracy in those with mild dysfunction. Given the important clinical information provided by LV assessment, quantitative analysis is recommended for accurate assessment. |
| spellingShingle | Holloway, C Edwards, L Rider, O Fast, A Clarke, K Francis, J Myerson, S Neubauer, S A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance. |
| title | A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance. |
| title_full | A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance. |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance. |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance. |
| title_short | A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance. |
| title_sort | comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hollowayc acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT edwardsl acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT ridero acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT fasta acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT clarkek acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT francisj acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT myersons acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT neubauers acomparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT hollowayc comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT edwardsl comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT ridero comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT fasta comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT clarkek comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT francisj comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT myersons comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance AT neubauers comparisonofvisualandquantitativeassessmentofleftventricularejectionfractionbycardiacmagneticresonance |