Muhummad Sohaib Nazir, Joseph Okafor, Theodore Murphy, Maria Sol Andres, Sivatharshini Ramalingham, Stuart D Rosen, Amedeo Chiribiri, Sven Plein, Sanjay Prasad, Raad Mohiaddin, Dudley J Pennell, A John Baksi, Rajdeep Khattar, Alexander R Lyon
下载PDF
{"title":"超声心动图与心脏磁共振成像在测量癌症患者左心室射血分数和疑似心脏毒性方面的比较","authors":"Muhummad Sohaib Nazir, Joseph Okafor, Theodore Murphy, Maria Sol Andres, Sivatharshini Ramalingham, Stuart D Rosen, Amedeo Chiribiri, Sven Plein, Sanjay Prasad, Raad Mohiaddin, Dudley J Pennell, A John Baksi, Rajdeep Khattar, Alexander R Lyon","doi":"10.1148/ryct.230048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured with echocardiography and cardiac MRI in individuals with cancer and suspected cardiotoxicity and assess the potential effect on downstream clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods In this prospective, single-center observational cohort study, participants underwent same-day two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography and cardiac MRI between 2011 and 2021. Participants with suboptimal image quality were excluded. A subset of 74 participants also underwent three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography. The agreement of LVEF derived from each modality was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and at relevant thresholds for cardiotoxicity. Results A total of 745 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 5 [SD]; 460 [61.7%] female participants) underwent same-day echocardiography and cardiac MRI. According to Bland-Altman analysis, the mean bias was -3.7% ± 7.6 (95% limits of agreement [LOA]: -18.5% to 11.1%) for 2D echocardiography versus cardiac MRI. In 74 participants who underwent cardiac MRI, 3D echocardiography, and 2D echocardiography, the mean LVEFs were 60.0% ± 10.4, 58.4% ± 9.4, and 57.2% ± 8.9, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001). At the 50% LVEF threshold for detection of cardiotoxicity, there was disagreement for 9.3% of participants with 2D echocardiography and cardiac MRI. Agreement was better with 3D echocardiography and cardiac MRI (mean bias, -1.6% ± 6.3 [95% LOA: -13.9% to 10.7%]) compared with 2D echocardiography and cardiac MRI (mean bias, -2.8% ± 6.3 [95% LOA: -15.2% to 9.6%]; <i>P</i> = .016). Conclusion Two-dimensional echocardiography had variations of ±15% for LVEF measurement compared with cardiac MRI in participants with cancer and led to misclassification of approximately 10% of participants for cardiotoxicity detection. Three-dimensional echocardiography had better agreement with cardiac MRI and should be used as first-line imaging. <b>Keywords:</b> Echocardiography, MR Functional Imaging, Cardiac <i>Supplemental material is available for this article</i>. © RSNA, 2024.</p>","PeriodicalId":21168,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10912891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Echocardiography versus Cardiac MRI for Measurement of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Individuals with Cancer and Suspected Cardiotoxicity.\",\"authors\":\"Muhummad Sohaib Nazir, Joseph Okafor, Theodore Murphy, Maria Sol Andres, Sivatharshini Ramalingham, Stuart D Rosen, Amedeo Chiribiri, Sven Plein, Sanjay Prasad, Raad Mohiaddin, Dudley J Pennell, A John Baksi, Rajdeep Khattar, Alexander R Lyon\",\"doi\":\"10.1148/ryct.230048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Purpose To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured with echocardiography and cardiac MRI in individuals with cancer and suspected cardiotoxicity and assess the potential effect on downstream clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods In this prospective, single-center observational cohort study, participants underwent same-day two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography and cardiac MRI between 2011 and 2021. Participants with suboptimal image quality were excluded. A subset of 74 participants also underwent three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography. The agreement of LVEF derived from each modality was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and at relevant thresholds for cardiotoxicity. Results A total of 745 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 5 [SD]; 460 [61.7%] female participants) underwent same-day echocardiography and cardiac MRI. According to Bland-Altman analysis, the mean bias was -3.7% ± 7.6 (95% limits of agreement [LOA]: -18.5% to 11.1%) for 2D echocardiography versus cardiac MRI. In 74 participants who underwent cardiac MRI, 3D echocardiography, and 2D echocardiography, the mean LVEFs were 60.0% ± 10.4, 58.4% ± 9.4, and 57.2% ± 8.9, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001). At the 50% LVEF threshold for detection of cardiotoxicity, there was disagreement for 9.3% of participants with 2D echocardiography and cardiac MRI. Agreement was better with 3D echocardiography and cardiac MRI (mean bias, -1.6% ± 6.3 [95% LOA: -13.9% to 10.7%]) compared with 2D echocardiography and cardiac MRI (mean bias, -2.8% ± 6.3 [95% LOA: -15.2% to 9.6%]; <i>P</i> = .016). Conclusion Two-dimensional echocardiography had variations of ±15% for LVEF measurement compared with cardiac MRI in participants with cancer and led to misclassification of approximately 10% of participants for cardiotoxicity detection. Three-dimensional echocardiography had better agreement with cardiac MRI and should be used as first-line imaging. <b>Keywords:</b> Echocardiography, MR Functional Imaging, Cardiac <i>Supplemental material is available for this article</i>. © RSNA, 2024.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10912891/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.230048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.230048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用