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: Rapid estimation of left ventricular function using echocardiographic speckle-tracking of mitral annular displacement.
    Author: Tsang W, Ahmad H, Patel AR, Sugeng L, Salgo IS, Weinert L, Mor-Avi V, Lang RM.
    Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr; 2010 May; 23(5):511-5. PubMed ID: 20356710.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) by transthoracic two-dimensional echocardiography is time-intensive and highly dependent on image quality. Mitral annular displacement (MAD) qualitatively correlates with EF and can be measured in patients with poor image quality and dropout. The authors hypothesized that speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE)-derived MAD could quantify EF accurately and tested this hypothesis using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a reference. METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients undergoing clinical transthoracic echocardiography were screened, and 110 whose mitral annuli was sufficiently well-defined irrespective of LV endocardial visualization underwent CMR within 6 days (85 of 110 in 1 day). Reference CMR EF values were obtained using standard methodology. STE was used to track annular motion throughout the cardiac cycle in the apical 2-chamber and 4-chamber views. To establish the relationship between MAD and CMR EF and to obtain a formula to estimate EF from MAD, regression analysis was performed in a study group of 60 patients with a wide range of EFs. This formula was then used in an independent test group of 50 patients by comparing estimated MAD EF against CMR EF values using Pearson's correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: In the study group, STE MAD correlated highly with CMR EF and resulted in a formula relating MAD to EF. In the test group, estimated EF correlated well with CMR EF (4-chamber, R(2) = 0.64; 2-chamber, R(2) = 0.55), with near-zero bias and acceptable limits of agreement. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were between 5.8% and 12.7%. CONCLUSIONS: STE MAD is a clinically useful tool for quick, easy, robust, and accurate estimates of EF irrespective of LV endocardial definition.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]