These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Novel wall motion score-based method for estimating global left ventricular ejection fraction: validation by real-time 3D echocardiography and global longitudinal strain.
    Author: Palmieri V, Russo C, Buonomo A, Palmieri EA, Celentano A.
    Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr; 2010 Mar; 11(2):125-30. PubMed ID: 19933521.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To evaluate the reliability of a regional wall motion score index (WMSI)-based method for assessment of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography was used to assess a LV 16-segment-based regional wall motion. Each segment received a score based on contractility status: 4, normal kinesis; 3, mild; 2.5, moderate; and 1.5, severe hypo-kinesis; 0, akinesis; -1, dyskinesis; 3.5 and 4.5 were used for low-normal and high-normal kinesis; 5 for hyper-kinesis. Hence, WMSI-based EF was derived by summing the score assigned to each segment. Contextually, EF was evaluated by real-time three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography and by traditional Simpson's method (2D). Global longitudinal strain (GLS) by speckle-tracking method was derived as a volume-independent indicator of LV chamber contractility sensitive to regional wall motion abnormalities. In 40 subjects with 3D-EF ranging from 14 to 80%, including clinically healthy hypertensive and patients with Stage B-D congestive heart failure with global or segmental wall motion abnormalities, on average, WMSI-EF did not differ from EF measured by 3D or 2D (all P > 0.5). By intraclass correlation coefficients, reliability of WMSI-EF vs. 3D method was as good as the reliability of 2D method vs. 3D method. GLS correlated with WMSI-EF as strongly as with 3D-EF (both r(2) = 0.90). Moderate-severe mitral regurgitation was associated with increased difference between WMSI-EF and 3D-EF, independent to potential confounders. Intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility of WMSI-EF was comparable to the reproducibility of EF estimated by 3D echocardiography. Feasibility (WMSI, 3D, 2D, and GLS all available) was 78%; however, feasibility of WMSI per se was approximately 92% in clinical series. CONCLUSION: Trained readers may rapidly estimate EF by a novel WMSI system, which was found to be accurate compared with 3D method and GLS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]