Blog
About

92
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: Comparison to necropsy findings

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To determine the accuracy of echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) dimension and mass measurements for detection and quantification of LV hypertrophy, results of blindly read antemortem echocardiograms were compared with LV mass measurements made at necropsy in 55 patients. LV mass was calculated using M-mode LV measurements by Penn and American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) conventions and cube function and volume correction formulas in 52 patients. Penn-cube LV mass correlated closely with necropsy LV mass (r = 0.92, p less than 0.001) and overestimated it by only 6%; sensitivity in 18 patients with LV hypertrophy (necropsy LV mass more than 215 g) was 100% (18 of 18 patients) and specificity was 86% (29 of 34 patients). ASE-cube LV mass correlated similarly to necropsy LV mass (r = 0.90, p less than 0.001), but systematically overestimated it (by a mean of 25%); the overestimation could be corrected by the equation: LV mass = 0.80 (ASE-cube LV mass) + 0.6 g. Use of ASE measurements in the volume correction formula systematically underestimated necropsy LV mass (by a mean of 30%). In a subset of 9 patients, 3 of whom had technically inadequate M-mode echocardiograms, 2-dimensional echocardiographic (echo) LV mass by 2 methods was also significantly related to necropsy LV mass (r = 0.68, p less than 0.05 and r = 0.82, p less than 0.01). Among other indexes of LV anatomy, only measurement of myocardial cross-sectional area was acceptably accurate for quantitation of LV mass (r = 0.80, p less than 0.001) or diagnosis of LV hypertrophy (sensitivity = 72%, specificity = 94%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

          Related collections

          Most cited references 22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measurement of left ventricular wall thickness and mass by echocardiography.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Anatomic validation of left ventricular mass estimates from clinical two-dimensional echocardiography: initial results.

            We performed a prospective anatomic validation study to determine the accuracy of left ventricular (LV) mass estimates from clinical two-dimensional echocardiographic (2-D echo) studies. In 21 subjects, antemortem 2-D echo LV mass determinations were compared with anatomic LV weight by postmortem chamber dissection. Major cardiac diagnoses included anatomic LV aneurysm in four, status post aneurysmectomy in one, transmural myocardial infarction in seven, congestive cardiomyopathy in five, rheumatic mitral disease in two, chronic severe mitral or aortic regurgitation in three, amyloid heart in two, and normal heart in three. Marked right-heart dilatation was present in 11 patients and LV thrombus in four. Regression equations derived in vitro for each 2-D echo instrument were used to correct LV mass estimates based on a short-axis, area-length method: uncorrected LV mass = 1.055 x k x 5/6 (AtLt - AcLc) + b, where At = total short-axis LV image area at the high papillary muscle level, Lc = endocardial LV length, k = an instrument-specific regression slope and b = an instrument-specific intercept. LV mass by 2-D echo correlated extremely well with actual LV weight (r = 0.93 slope = 0.85, SEE = 31 g, range 77-454 g). In contrast, M-mode echocardiographic LV mass estimates were less reliable (r = 0.86, SEE = 59 g) in these markedly distorted hearts. These 2-D echo LV mass results compare favorably with reported results from biplane angiography and M-mode echocardiography in more symmetric hearts. Thus, regression-corrected 2-D echo may be the method of choice for determining LV mass in man.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Echocardiographic measurements in normal subjects: evaluation of an adult population without clinically apparent heart disease.

               C. Burn,  J H Ware,  D Savage (1979)
              In order to determine normal echocardiographic values for older subjects, we studied 136 adults (78 men and 58 women, 20 to 97 years of age) without evidence of cardiovascular disease. When patients were subdivided into six age groups, progressive changes were found in mean normal values for various parameters. Specifically, when the oldest group (over 70 years) was compared with the youngest group (21-30 years), significant (p less than 0.01) increases in aortic root (22 percent) and left atrial (16 percent) dimensions, in ventricular septal (20 percent) and left ventricular free-wall (18 percent) thicknesses, and in estimated left ventricular mass (15 percent) were noted. In addition, a significant (p less than 0.01) decrease in mean mitral E-F slope (43 percent) and slight decreases in mean left ventricular systolic and diastolic internal dimensions (5 and 6 percent, respectively; p less than 0.05) were noted. Left ventricular ejection fraction and percentage fractional shortening were found to be independent of age. These data have been used to derive regression equations that are related to both age and body surface area. The regression equations can be used to calculate mean normal values and 95 percent prediction intervals for echocardiographic measurements in adults.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The American Journal of Cardiology
                The American Journal of Cardiology
                Elsevier BV
                00029149
                February 1986
                February 1986
                : 57
                : 6
                : 450-458
                Article
                10.1016/0002-9149(86)90771-X
                2936235
                © 1986

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                Comments

                Comment on this article