2013
DOI: 10.1111/echo.12331
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Volumes: It Depends on the Imaging Method

Abstract: Background and MethodsIn order to provide guidance for using measurements of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (LVEF) from different echocardiographic methods a PubMed review was performed on studies that reported reference values in normal populations for two-dimensional (2D ECHO) and three-dimensional (3D ECHO) echocardiography, nuclear imaging, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). In addition all studies (2 multicenter, 16 single center) were reviewed, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

16
166
0
6

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 215 publications
(188 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
16
166
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…The significant decrease in EF from the first to the third trimester was not paired with a decreased FS. We believe that these findings should not be emphasized as a true decrease, but as the result of the measurement variability, as previously reported [13].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The significant decrease in EF from the first to the third trimester was not paired with a decreased FS. We believe that these findings should not be emphasized as a true decrease, but as the result of the measurement variability, as previously reported [13].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…However, as this definition does not apply to patients with a reduced LVEF (<53%) at baseline, a drop in LVEF of ≄10% (to any value) was considered as a significant change in cardiac function. This is in agreement with defining a significant change by more than 2 times the standard deviation for echocardiography‐based measurements of LVEF 24. In agreement with the ASE consensus statement, reversibility of cardiac dysfunction was defined in relation to baseline LVEF: improvement to within 5 percentage points of baseline was considered reversible, improvement by ≄10 percentage points from the nadir but remaining >5 percentage points below baseline was considered partially reversible, and improvement by <10 percentage points from the nadir and remaining >5 percentage points below baseline was considered irreversible.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Echocardiographic measurements in individual patients were made on only two occasions, so we cannot say whether these changes remained consistent in the longer term in their direction or magnitude. In addition, echocardiography is not the best way to assess cardiac function, with a reported ~6% inter-observer variability in the measurement of EF (23). Finally, the study was carried out at the VA Health Care System and was therefore limited to only men.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%