Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Apr;27(4):563-9.
doi: 10.1007/s10554-010-9706-0. Epub 2010 Oct 1.

A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance

Cameron J Holloway et al. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Apr.

Erratum in

  • Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Apr;27(4):571

Abstract

To determine the accuracy of visual analysis of left ventricular (LV) function in comparison with the accepted quantitative gold standard method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cine CMR imaging was performed at 1.5 T on 44 patients with a range of ejection fractions (EF, 5-80%). Clinicians (n = 18) were asked to visually assess EF after sequentially being shown cine images of a four chamber (horizontal long axis; HLA), two chamber (vertical long axis; VLA) and a short axis stack (SAS) and results were compared to a commercially available analysis package. There were strong correlations between visual and quantitative assessment. However, the EF was underestimated in all categories (by 8.4% for HLA, 8.4% for HLA + VLA and 7.9% for HLA + VLA + SAS, P all < 0.01) and particularly underestimated in mild LV impairment (17.4%, P < 0.01), less so for moderate (4.9%) and not for severe impairment (1%). Assessing more than one view of the heart improved visual assessment of LV, EF, however, clinicians underestimated EF by 8.4% on average, with particular inaccuracy in those with mild dysfunction. Given the important clinical information provided by LV assessment, quantitative analysis is recommended for accurate assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Am J Med Sci. 1990 Mar;299(3):175-8 - PubMed
    1. Heart. 2001 Sep;86(3):271-6 - PubMed
    1. Am Heart J. 1982 Jul;104(1):136-44 - PubMed
    1. Clin Cardiol. 1995 Dec;18(12):726-9 - PubMed
    1. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2002 Mar;3(1):44-6 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources