Influence of chest wall conformation on reproducibility of main echocardiographic indices of left ventricular systolic function.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Minerva cardiology and angiology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-17 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06475-X
Andrea Sonaglioni, Gian L Nicolosi, Alberto Granato, Andrea Bonanomi, Elisabetta Rigamonti, Michele Lombardo
{"title":"Influence of chest wall conformation on reproducibility of main echocardiographic indices of left ventricular systolic function.","authors":"Andrea Sonaglioni, Gian L Nicolosi, Alberto Granato, Andrea Bonanomi, Elisabetta Rigamonti, Michele Lombardo","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06475-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The possible influence of chest wall conformation, as noninvasively assessed by Modified Haller Index (MHI, the ratio of chest transverse diameter over the distance between sternum and spine), on reproducibility of both left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) has never been previously investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two equal groups of healthy individuals, matched by age, sex, and cardiovascular risk factors and categorized according to MHI in those with concave-shaped chest wall (MHI>2.5) and those with normal chest shape (MHI≤2.5), who underwent transthoracic echocardiography implemented with echocardiographic deformation imaging between June 2018 and May 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. LVEF and GLS were measured twice by the two echocardiographers in a double blinded manner. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), bias and limits of agreement determined with Bland-Altman analysis were calculated for repeated measurements of both LVEF and GLS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four healthy individuals with MHI>2.5 (54.9±6.4 years, 58.8% females) and 34 matched controls with MHI≤2.5 (52.5±8.1 years, 50% females) were separately analyzed. In comparison to MHI≤2.5 group, the MHI>2.5 group was found with significantly smaller cardiac chambers and significantly lower GLS magnitude (-15.8±2.5 vs. -22.2±1.3%, P<0.001), despite similar LVEF (61.3±6.4 vs. 61.1±3.6%, P=0.87). In the MHI>2.5 group, intra-rater and inter-rater ICCs were ≤0.5 for both LVEF and LV-GLS, whereas in the MHI≤2.5 group intra-rater and inter-rater ICCs values indicated good reliability for LVEF and excellent reliability for GLS. The greatest bias and largest limits of agreement were detected for LVEF assessment (bias ranging from -1.09 to 2.94%, with the 95% limits of agreement ranging from -13.9 to 21.3%) in individuals with MHI>2.5. On the other hand, the smallest bias and narrowest limits of agreement were obtained for GLS measurement (bias ranging from -0.26 to 0.09%, with the 95% limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 1.4%) in participants with normal chest wall conformation (MHI≤2.5).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The test reliability of LVEF and GLS is strongly influenced by the chest wall conformation. MHI might represent an innovative approach for selecting the best echocardiographic method for LV systolic function estimation in the individual case.</p>","PeriodicalId":18668,"journal":{"name":"Minerva cardiology and angiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva cardiology and angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06475-X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The possible influence of chest wall conformation, as noninvasively assessed by Modified Haller Index (MHI, the ratio of chest transverse diameter over the distance between sternum and spine), on reproducibility of both left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) has never been previously investigated.

Methods: Two equal groups of healthy individuals, matched by age, sex, and cardiovascular risk factors and categorized according to MHI in those with concave-shaped chest wall (MHI>2.5) and those with normal chest shape (MHI≤2.5), who underwent transthoracic echocardiography implemented with echocardiographic deformation imaging between June 2018 and May 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. LVEF and GLS were measured twice by the two echocardiographers in a double blinded manner. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), bias and limits of agreement determined with Bland-Altman analysis were calculated for repeated measurements of both LVEF and GLS.

Results: Thirty-four healthy individuals with MHI>2.5 (54.9±6.4 years, 58.8% females) and 34 matched controls with MHI≤2.5 (52.5±8.1 years, 50% females) were separately analyzed. In comparison to MHI≤2.5 group, the MHI>2.5 group was found with significantly smaller cardiac chambers and significantly lower GLS magnitude (-15.8±2.5 vs. -22.2±1.3%, P<0.001), despite similar LVEF (61.3±6.4 vs. 61.1±3.6%, P=0.87). In the MHI>2.5 group, intra-rater and inter-rater ICCs were ≤0.5 for both LVEF and LV-GLS, whereas in the MHI≤2.5 group intra-rater and inter-rater ICCs values indicated good reliability for LVEF and excellent reliability for GLS. The greatest bias and largest limits of agreement were detected for LVEF assessment (bias ranging from -1.09 to 2.94%, with the 95% limits of agreement ranging from -13.9 to 21.3%) in individuals with MHI>2.5. On the other hand, the smallest bias and narrowest limits of agreement were obtained for GLS measurement (bias ranging from -0.26 to 0.09%, with the 95% limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 1.4%) in participants with normal chest wall conformation (MHI≤2.5).

Conclusions: The test reliability of LVEF and GLS is strongly influenced by the chest wall conformation. MHI might represent an innovative approach for selecting the best echocardiographic method for LV systolic function estimation in the individual case.

胸壁形态对左心室收缩功能主要超声心动图指标重现性的影响
背景:改良哈勒指数(MHI,胸部横径与胸骨和脊柱之间距离的比值)可无创评估胸壁构型对左心室射血分数(LVEF)和整体纵向应变(GLS)可重复性的可能影响:方法:对2018年6月至2019年5月期间接受经胸超声心动图检查并进行超声心动图形变成像的两组相同的健康人进行回顾性分析,这两组健康人的年龄、性别和心血管风险因素相匹配,并根据MHI分为胸壁凹陷者(MHI>2.5)和胸廓形状正常者(MHI≤2.5)。LVEF 和 GLS 由两名超声心动图医师以双盲方式测量两次。对LVEF和GLS的重复测量结果计算了类内相关系数(ICC)、偏差和用Bland-Altman分析确定的一致性界限:分别分析了 34 名 MHI>2.5 的健康人(54.9±6.4 岁,58.8% 为女性)和 34 名 MHI≤2.5 的匹配对照者(52.5±8.1 岁,50% 为女性)。与MHI≤2.5组相比,MHI>2.5组的心腔明显更小,GLS幅度明显更低(-15.8±2.5 vs. -22.2±1.3%,P2.5组,LVEF和LV-GLS的评分者内和评分者间ICC均≤0.5,而MHI≤2.5组的评分者内和评分者间ICC值显示LVEF的可靠性良好,GLS的可靠性极佳。在 MHI>2.5 的个体中,LVEF 评估的偏差最大,一致性限值也最大(偏差范围为-1.09% 至 2.94%,95% 一致性限值范围为-13.9% 至 21.3%)。另一方面,在胸壁形态正常(MHI≤2.5)的受试者中,GLS 测量的偏差最小,一致性范围最窄(偏差范围为-0.26%至0.09%,95%的一致性范围为-1.4%至1.4%):结论:LVEF 和 GLS 的测试可靠性受胸壁形态的影响很大。MHI可能代表了一种创新方法,可为个体病例的左心室收缩功能评估选择最佳超声心动图方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva cardiology and angiology
Minerva cardiology and angiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
118
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信