ArticleOpen heart
Classification of left ventricular size: diameter or volume with contrast echocardiography?
Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac structure and systolic function in resistance-trained athletes versus untrained male adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Observational
- Quadratic stratification of left ventricular hypertrophy and association with mitral insufficiency grading: a retrospective study using cardiac magnetic resonance.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2024Article
- The dependency of fetal left ventricular biomechanics function on myocardium helix angle configuration.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2023Article
- The value of echocardiographic measurement of epicardial adipose tissue in heart failure patients.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Paradoxical low-flow phenotype in hospitalized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2020Article
- Mitral valve replacement in mitral stenosis; the problem of small left ventricle.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2020Article
- A publicly available virtual cohort of four-chamber heart meshes for cardiac electro-mechanics simulations.PloS one · 2020Article
- A mechanistic investigation of the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve's hemodynamic performance.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
- Mathematical modeling of cardiac function to evaluate clinical cases in adults and children.PloS one · 2019Article
- Assessment of the accuracy of common clinical thresholds for cardiac morphology and function by transthoracic echocardiography.Journal of echocardiography · 2017Article
- Association of serum intact fibroblast growth factor 23 with left ventricular mass and different echocardiographic findings in patients on hemodialysis.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular (LV) size is an important clinical variable, commonly assessed at echocardiography by measurement of the internal diameter in diastole (IDD). However, this has recognised limitations and volumetric measurement from apical views is considered superior, particularly with the use of echocardiographic contrast. We sought to determine the agreement in classification of LV size by different measures in a large population of patients undergoing echocardiography. METHODS AND
resultsData were analysed retrospectively from consecutive patients (n=2008, 61% male, median 62 years) who received echocardiographic contrast for LV opacification over 3 years in a single institution. Repeat studies were not included. LVIDD was measured, and LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) calculated using Simpson's biplane method. Both measures were indexed (i) to body surface area and categorised according to the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines as normal, mild, moderate or severely dilated. Of 320 patients with a severely dilated LVEDVi, only 95 (30%) were similarly classified by LVIDD, with 86 patients (27%) measuring in the normal range. LVIDDi agreement was poorer, with only 43 patients (13%) classified as being severely dilated, and 173 (54%) measuring in the normal range.
conclusionsCurrently recommended echocardiographic measures of LV size show limited agreement when classified according to currently recommended cut-offs. LV diameter should have a limited role in the assessment of LV size, particularly where a finding of LV dilation has important diagnostic or therapeutic 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.