ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2024
Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular volumes: a comparison of different methods in athletes.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How can common errors in left heart echocardiography be avoided? An expert proposalby the German Working Group of Cardiovascular Ultrasound.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Review
- Physiological assessment of left ventricular size indexed by peak oxygen uptake across sporting disciplines.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) is considered the gold standard for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. However, discrepancies have been reported in the literature between LV volumes assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cMRI. The objective of this study was to analyze the differences in LV volumes between different echocardiographic techniques and cMRI. METHODS AND
resultsIn 64 male athletes (21.1 ± 4.9 years), LV volumes were measured by TTE using the following methods: Doppler echocardiography, anatomical M-Mode, biplane/triplane planimetry and 3D volumetry. In addition, LV end-diastolic (LVEDV), end-systolic (LVESV), and stroke volumes (LVSV) were assessed in 11 athletes by both TTE and cMRI. There was no significant difference between LVEDV and LVESV determined by biplane/triplane planimetry and 3D volumetry. LVEDV and LVESV measured by M-Mode were significantly lower compared to 3D volumetry. LVSV determined by Doppler with 3D planimetry of LV outflow tract was significantly higher than 2D planimetry and 3D volumetry, whereas none of the planimetric or volumetric methods for determining LVSV differed significantly. There were no significant differences for LVEDV, LVESV, LVSV and LVEF between cMRI and TTE determined by biplane planimetry in the subgroup of 11 athletes.
conclusionThe choice of echocardiographic method used has an impact on LVSV in athletes, so the LVSV should always be checked for plausibility. The same echocardiographic method should be used to assess LVSV at follow-ups to ensure good comparability. The data suggest that biplane LV planimetry by TTE is not inferior to cMRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39102001What 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.