ArticleAmerican heart journal2009
Are ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography and left ventriculography equivalent?
Article in American heart journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Both High and Low Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With Increased Risk After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Heart, lung & circulation · 2021Article
- Risk assessment in patients with an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2016Article
- Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction values obtained using invasive contrast left ventriculography, two-dimensional echocardiography, and gated single-photon emission computed tomography.SAGE open medicine · 2016Article
- Sex differences in the agreement between left ventricular ejection fraction measured by myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and by echocardiography.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an important parameter in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. Previous studies comparing echocardiography and contrast left ventriculography (CVG) for the measurement of EF have shown considerable variation in results, yet, in clinical practice, EF measurements are used interchangeably. The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance between echocardiography and CVG for the determination of EF in routine clinical practice and to identify factors associated with variation in test results.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of 5,385 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction between 1997 and 2005 as part of a community-based surveillance project. Of these, 741 patients had EF measurements recorded by both echocardiography and CVG during hospitalization.
resultsWhile good correlation (r = 0.73) and no systematic bias were noted between the measurement of EF by echocardiogram compared to CVG, there was wide variation between the 2 methods for any given patient. In approximately one third of patients with acute myocardial infarction, the measurement of EF by echocardiography and CVG differed by >10 points, while in approximately 1 in 20 patients, EF measurements by echocardiography and CVG differed by >20 points. The number of days between tests to measure EF, level of EF, temporal order of EF testing, and patient-related factors made only a minor contribution to the variation in test results.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that, in routine clinical practice, EF determinations obtained by echocardiography and CVG may vary widely, with potentially important clinical implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.